Regalado v. Curling, 430 N.J. Super. 342 (App. Div. 2013).  The lesson of this short opinion by Judge Sapp-Peterson, issued the day after this appeal was orally argued due to the need for speed, is that “[e]lection laws are to be liberally construed” and may be “relaxed where enforcement of the right of choice in the election process is unreasonably thwarted.”  Plaintiff had sought to compel defendant, the municipal clerk of the City of Passaic, from printing ball

Maeker v. Ross, 430 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2013).  In 2010, the Legislature amended the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h), to cover ”palimony” agreements, that is, “[a] promise by one party to a non-marital personal relationship to provide support or other consideration to the other party, either during the course of such relationship or after its termination.”   As a result of that amendment, palimony contracts are now among the agreements upon which “

Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co.., 2012 WL 3870323 (App. Div. Sept. 7, 2012).  As discussed here, New Jersey has more liberal rules for standing to sue than do the federal courts.  But there are some extreme cases where even those generous standing principles do not allow a plaintiff to sue.  This per curiam opinion, by