The Supreme Court has granted review in five cases.  One of them is an appeal as of right, by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division.  That case is State v. Twiggs.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “When addressing the statute of limitations in a criminal matter, is N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6’s tolling provision- which applies when ‘the actor’ is identified by means of DNA evidence- triggered where the DNA analyzed belongs to a third party, rather than the defendant?”  The Appellate Division’

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

McCarrell v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017).  Justice Albin’s opinion for a unanimous (6-0, with Justice Patterson not participating) Court today referred to “our evolving choice-of-law jurisprudence.”  Today’s opinion, which adopted the test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §142 for the determination of choice of law in the statute of limitations context, is the latest step in that evolution.

This was one of the tho