After this post about the Supreme Court’s busy August, that Court decided two more cases. Both were criminal appeals. Here are summaries: read more

It had been four weeks since the Supreme Court last took up a new case. But now a new appeal, perhaps the final one to reach the Court in the current term, has joined the docket. That case is State v. O.D.A.-C. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Should defendant’s statement have been suppressed because the detective’s comments while questioning defendant vitiated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?” read more

August is often a busy month for the Supreme Court, as the Justices count down to the new Term by deciding most if not all of the remaining cases from the current Term. This year is no exception. So far, the Court has issued an opinion every weekday (except Fridays, when customarily no opinions of the Court are released) in the first two weeks of August. Here is a rundown of the Court’s August rulings to date: read more

Chief Justice Rabner has issued the General Assignment Order for the coming Term. It is available here. read more

Judge McKee announced that he is taking senior status. The effective date of that action is to be determined. Judge McKee’s move to senior status will allow President Biden to nominate someone to fill a seat on the Third Circuit. That will be the first nomination to the Third Circuit that President Biden will have had the chance to make. read more

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. D.H., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This case comprised two related appeals. Two biological parents saw their parental rights to their five-year old son terminated by the Family Part under Title 30. The parents had admitted to the recreational use of marijuana. They appealed, contending that the Family Part had improperly held that use of marijuana use against them. read more

State v. Carter, ___ N.J. ___ (2021); State v. Roman-Rosado, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). These two consolidated appeals, in which Chief Justice Rabner authored a unanimous opinion issued today, dealt with N.J.S.A. 39:-3-33. As relevant to today’s ruling, that statute states “No person shall drive a motor vehicle which has a license plate frame or identification marker holder that conceals or otherwise obscures any part of any marking imprinted upon the vehicle’s registration plate . . . .” read more

read more