The Supreme Court has announced that it has granted review in three new cases. The cases are an interesting assortment.
In State v. Burkett, a criminal case, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Was defendant’s conduct distributing wedding photographs of a colleague to which defendant had added vulgar annotations protected speech that could not constitute criminal harassment?” In the Matter of the Enforcement of New Jersey False Claims Act Subpoenas poses the following question, as phrased by the Clerk’s Office: “Is the State foreclosed from utilizing the New Jersey False Claims Act’s administrative subpoena power once the Attorney General’s right to intervene in a qui tam action has expired?”
Finally, there is Hayes v. Delamotte. The question presented there, as phrased by the Clerk’s Office, is “Under the circumstances presented, was plaintiff entitled to a new trial following the jury’s no-cause verdict?” In that case, after a jury in this Ocean County auto accident case returned a no-cause verdict, the Law Division judge set that verdict aside. Defendant appealed, and the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the Law Division and reinstated the jury verdict. Now the Supreme Court will have the last word.