State v. Buckner, 437 N.J. Super. 8 (App. Div. 2014). The issue of whether mandatory retirement of judges at age 70 is constitutional was discussed here. (As an aside, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which thereafter addressed that very issue in that jurisdiction, concluded that there was no unconstitutionality, as discussed
Procopio v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 433 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2013). As Judge Parrillo stated in today’s opinion, rulings of trial level judges on discovery matters, and on whether to sever some claims from others, are both discretion calls. In this case, the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal from a Law Division decision that severed plaintiff’s uninsured motorist (“UIM”) claim from his claim of bad faith by the defendant in
Discovery and Severance
Where Intent is at Issue, Summary Judgment is Normally Inappropriate
In re Estate of DeFrank, 433 N.J. Super. 258 (App. Div. 2013). This case involved the question of whether the funds in certain joint bank accounts, which accounts were in the names of decedent and defendant, passed to defendant or not. The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the Chancery Division. That court ruled, as a matter of law, that the funds were non-probate assets governed by the Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16I-1 to -17 (“MDPA&
reader