The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification to review three cases.  Two of them are criminal appeals.  The third is another case involving an arbitration agreement. read more

Park Crest Cleaners, LLC v. A Plus Cleaners & Alterations Corp., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019).  This opinion by Judge Fisher today dismissed an appeal under convoluted facts.  To dramatically oversimplify (and it’s worth reading the opinion, which, characteristically for Judge Fisher, was not long), the parties litigated a commercial case that resulted, after a jury trial, in a judgment for plaintiffs against defendants and the owner of property that was involved in the lawsuit.  The Chancery Division reduced the damage figure awarded by the jury to a lesser amount. read more

Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019).  Plaintiff in this case under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49 (“LAD”), used medical marijuana, as authorized by the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -16 (“Compassionate Use Act’), as part of his cancer treatment.  Plaintiff worked for the first named defendant, Carriage, as a licensed funeral director.  While working a funeral, a vehicle that plaintiff was driving was struck by another vehicle that had run a stop sign.  Taken to a hospital for his injuries in the accident, plaintiff told a doctor there that plaintiff had a license to possess medical marijuana.  The doctor said that it was clear that plaintiff was not then under the influence of marijuana, and that no blood test would be required. read more

Piscitelli v. City of Garfield Bd. of Adj., ___ N.J. ___ (2019).  Conflict of interest issues are often sticky.  That was doubly so in this case, which the Supreme Court decided today, since there were not just one but two potential conflicts alleged.  The Supreme Court split 4-3, a relatively rare occurrence.  Justice Albin authored the majority opinion, in which Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Patterson and Timpone joined.  Justice Solomon filed a partial dissenting opinion, joined by Justices LaVecchia and Fernandez-Vina.  The majority held that the Court did not have enough information to determine whether a conflict of interest, on either asserted basis, existed, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.  The dissenters agreed that remand was required as to one conflict issue, but would have concluded that the other asserted matter did not pose a conflict. read more

The Supreme Court announced late today that it has granted certification in In re Application for Permit to Carry a Handgun of Calvin Carlstrom.  The question presented on that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Among other issues, was petitioner entitled to a hearing on his application for a permit to carry a handgun?”  The Law Division denied the applicant, a security guard for AMC Movie Theaters, a permit to carry a gun in that capacity.  There was no hearing in that court.  A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion, rebuffing the applicant’s arguments under the Second Amendment, the separation of powers, and due process.  Now the Supreme Court will take its turn. read more

Chief justice Rabner was the guest speaker at last night’s NJSBA Appellate Practice Committee meeting.  He was aware that Judge Vernoia spoke at a previous meeting about appellate briefing, as reported here.  So he chose to focus his remarks on oral argument in the Supreme Court.  Though some of his points were specific to the Supreme Court, others apply to appellate oral arguments generally.  Here are some of the highlights of his lengthy, well-received remarks, after which he took questions. read more

On March 15, 2006, the Supreme Court decided Perez v. Rent-A-Center, 186 N.J. 188 (2006).  By a 6-1 vote, with Justice Rivera-Soto issuing a partial dissent, the Court held in an opinion by Justice Long that “rent-to-own” contracts are subject to the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1 et seq. (“RISA”), to the interest rate limitation contained in the criminal usury statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-19, and to the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. (“CFA”).  The Court thereby reversed the decisions of the Law Division and the Appellate Division that had granted summary judgment against plaintiff and the putative class. read more

Today, the Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in nine more cases.  That is many more cases than are usually accepted for review at one time, though it has been 30 days since the Court last announced grants of review.  Six of the cases involve grants of certification, two are before the Court on leave to appeal granted, and one as a result of a dissent in the Appellate Division.  Here are the cases that the Court will consider: read more