The Supreme Court announced today the addition to three more cases to its docket. The first of those appeals comes from a published opinion of the Appellate Division. Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman, 447 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2016), discussed here. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “In this defamation action, did posting an article on a website with minor changes from the original posting constitute a separate publication, thereby triggering a new statute of limitations, or did the single publication rule apply to render the complaint untimely?” The Appellate Division applied the single publication rule and barred the claim. The Supreme Court granted a petition for certification, but denied a cross-petition.
The second case is State v. Hagans. The question presented there is “Was consent to search the vehicle freely and voluntarily given, under the circumstances presented?” In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division upheld the search. The Supreme Court granted certification, limited to the voluntariness of the consent to search, and permitted supplemental briefing.
Finally, in State in the Interest of J.A., the question presented is “Did exigent circumstances justify the officers’ warrantless entry in the juvenile’s home, where the officers tracked him by following the GPS signals emitted from the victim’s stolen phone? In another unpublished per curiam opinion, a different panel of the Appellate Division than in Hagans found probably cause and exigent circumstances, thus upholding the entry of the police into the home. The Court granted certification and authorized supplemental briefing.