As announced here, the Supreme Court of the United States today advised that, “in light of public health concerns,” it is postponing oral arguments that had been scheduled for March 23-25 and March 30-April 1. “The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” its press release stated. read more

Mejia v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2020). Today’s opinion by Justice Fernandez-Vina, for a unanimous Supreme Court, involved “whether a third-party defendant, facing only claims for contribution and common-law indemnification from an original defendant that did not file an affidavit of merit against him, must participate in the trial establishing the underlying liability.” The Court concluded that the third-party defendant was required to participate at trial, affirming the decisions of both the Law Division and the Appellate Division to that effect. read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in State v. Ahmad, an appeal from a manslaughter conviction. The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Was defendant’s statement obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?” A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the ruling of the Law Division that there was no Miranda violation in the police’s questioning of defendant. Now the Supreme Court will consider the question. read more

Kornbleuth v. Westover, ___ N.J. ___ (2020). The Supreme Court of the United States frequently seems to split 5-4. It is relatively rare for the Supreme court of New Jersey to split 4-3. Yesterday, in a case involving the unauthorized removal by one set of neighbors of a “fence” made of bamboo on the neighboring residential property, was one of those times. read more

Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2020). In this case, as discussed here, the Appellate Division reversed a trial level decision that had granted dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), at the threshold. Today, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling substantially for the reasons offered by the Appellate Division. read more

February 26 was the most recent post on this blog. From then until today, I have had an Appellate Division oral argument, an oral argument on a dispositive motion in the Law Division, and an oral argument in the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Meanwhile, the appellate courts have not been silent. Here is a summary of some of the decisions that have been issued during that window: read more

read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four more cases. One of those matters, State v. Lodzinski, a murder case, has received substantial publicity during its lengthy life. In that case, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Was it reversable error to remove and replace a juror who conducted outside research and was there sufficient evidence in the record to support defendant’s murder conviction?” A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished opinion, rejected defendant’s arguments and affirmed her conviction. read more