The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in Saint Peter’s University Hospital, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc.  That case, and related litigation involving hospitals and Horizon, has gotten much publicity in the press.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “In this action concerning defendant’s implementation of the OMNIA two-tiered provider network, did the trial court err in ordering the production of certain discovery, which defendant contends was inconsistent with the Appellate Division̵

The Supreme Court has announced that it has accepted the request of the Third Circuit, in two consolidated cases, to answer certified questions about the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 et seq. (“TCCWNA”).  The questions presented are “Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply with the Delivery of Household Furniture Regulations (Furniture Delivery Regulations), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5, but has not suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an ‘aggrieved consumer’ under the Truth-in-Consumer Con

Conley v. Guerrero, ___ N.J. ___ (2017).  Today’s decision in this case, written by Justice Solomon for a unanimous Court, largely affirmed the ruling of the Appellate Division, reported at 443 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 2015), and discussed here.  The case proceeded from the resolution of New Jersey State Bar Ass’n v. New Jersey Ass’n of Realtor Bds., 93 N.J.