The Supreme Court announced four more cases that will come before it.  The subject matters, and the paths that the cases took to reach the Court, are quite varied.

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a matter in which the Court agreed to address questions certified to it by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  Those questions, unchanged from the way that the Third Circuit framed then, are “Does a life insurance policy that is procured to benefit persons without an insurable interest in the life of the insured violate the public policy of New

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court did what it does not often do: affirm a decision of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, rather than writing its own fully-expressed opinion.

Yesterday’s ruling, in Granata v. Broderick, 231 N.J. 135 (2017), affirmed a decision by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  As the Supreme Court summarized it, the Appellate Division ruled that “an att

Kadonsky v. Lee, 452 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2017).  In this appeal, plaintiff petitioned the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (“the Division”) to have marijuana rescheduled from a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Schedule IV or V substance.  The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-1 to -56, which gives the Director of the Division power to add, delete, or reschedule controlled substances.  Plaintiff noted that when the Legislature passed th