Kadonsky v. Lee, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  In this appeal, plaintiff petitioned the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (“the Division”) to have marijuana rescheduled from a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Schedule IV or V substance.  The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-1 to -56, which gives the Director of the Division power to add, delete, or reschedule controlled substances.  Plaintiff noted that when the Legislature passed the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16 (“CUMMA”), in 2010, the Legislature found that marijuana had a beneficial use in treating or alleviating pain from medical conditions.  Plaintiff contended that “marijuana no longer satisfied one of the requirements for inclusion in Schedule I, that the substance ‘has no accepted medical use in treatment,’ N.J.S.A. 24:21-5(a).” read more

Pollack v. Quick Quality Restaurants, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  The first paragraph of Judge Gibbons Whipple’s opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulated what this appeal was about.  “In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, we are asked to consider whether a tenant exercising a right of first refusal to adopt terms of a sale contract for certain premises is obligated to pay a commission to a third-party broker that secured a prospective buyer.  Because there was no contractual relationship here between the tenant and the third-party broker, or other basis to impose liability for the commission, we affirm” the grant of summary judgment to the defendant tenant. read more

Stephanos Bibas is a Professor of Law and Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.  He is a graduate of Yale Law School and has other degrees from Columbia and Oxford.  Following his graduation from law school, Professor Bibas clerked for Judge Patrick Higginbotham of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and then for Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court of the United States.  After his clerkships, he served for two years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York for two years before joining the law faculty at the University of Iowa.  He has been at Penn Law since 2006. read more

Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2017).  Eye drops can be helpful to many people, but putting drops in one’s eyes is unpleasant at many levels.  One of those levels– that prescription eye drop medication is delivered in drop sizes that are too large, resulting in large portions of each drop being wasted by patients–  was the subject of this case. read more

If there is one case that every New Jersey litigator, and even most non-litigators, know, it is Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995).  That opinion, written by Justice Coleman for a unanimous Supreme Court, was issued on October 24, 1995.  Westlaw shows that the case has had 15,635 citing references since then. read more

Mellet v. Aquasid, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  The decision in this consumer protection case was issued in June as an unpublished opinion.  Defendant then asked the Committee on Opinions to designate it for publication, pursuant to Rule 1:36-2(c).  Plaintiffs were not made aware of that request.  The Committee authorized publication, and the ruling appeared as a published opinion this week.  Meanwhile, plaintiffs had petitioned for certification, but the Supreme Court denied that petition right around the time that the published opinion appeared. read more

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in State v. Anthony.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Is defendant entitled to a new trial based on the police officer’s failure to record verbatim the comments of the witness while identifying defendant from a photographic array?”  The Law Division ruled against defendant on this issue, and the Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed. read more

Collins v. Mary Kay, Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2017).  This opinion of the Third Circuit today, written by Judge Restrepo, answers what he called “a layered choice-of-law question:  what law governs the interpretation of a forum selection clause in a written agreement when that agreement also contains a choice-of-law clause?”  The court concluded that Texas law, which the choice of law clauses in both of the subject agreements made applicable, would apply, rather than the law of New Jersey, where plaintiff and members of a putative class worked as independent contractors for defendant, a Texas-based company.  The District Court had granted a defense motion to dismiss the case, which was brought in the District of New Jersey, on forum non conveniens grounds.  The Third Circuit affirmed that result. read more