Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • State v. Wildemar A. Dangcil (085665) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-56-20 Supreme Aug. 16, 2021 Oral Argument A-56-20 A-56-20 Audio for A-56-20 Close Summary A-56-20 *The pre-voir dire disqualification, excusal, or deferral of jurors is not a stage at which defendant is entitled to be present or be represented, and defendant has failed to support his representative-cross-section claim. Close
  • Larry Schwartz v. Nicholas Menas, Esq. (085184) (Monmouth County and Statewide) A-54/55-20 Supreme Aug. 17, 2022 Oral Argument A-54/55-20 A-54/55-20 Audio for A-54/55-20 Close Summary A-54/55-20 The Court joins the majority of jurisdictions that reject a per se ban on claims by new businesses for lost profits damages, and it declines to follow Weiss to the extent that it bars any claim by a new business for such damages. Claims for lost profits damages are governed by the standard of reasonable certainty and require a fact-sensitive analysis. Because it is substantially more difficult for a new business to establish lost profits damages with reasonable certainty, a trial court should carefully scrutinize a new business’s claim that a defendant’s tortious conduct or breach of contract prevented it from profiting from an enterprise in which it has no experience and should bar that claim unless it can be proven with reasonable certainty. The Court remands these matters so that the trial court may decide defendants’ motions in accordance with the proper standard. Close
  • State v. Anthony Sims, Jr. (085369) (Monmouth County & Statewide) A-53-20 Supreme March 16, 2022 Oral Argument A-53-20 Part 1 Audio for Part 1 Part 2 Audio for Part 2 Close Summary A-53-20 The Court declines to adopt the new rule prescribed by the Appellate Division and finds no plain error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress his statement to police. The Court also concurs with the trial court that the victim’s testimony at the pretrial hearing was admissible under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1)(A)’s exception to the hearsay rule for the prior testimony of a witness unavailable at trial, and that the admission of that testimony did not violate defendant’s confrontation rights. Close
  • Michele Meade v. Township of Livingston (085176)(Essex County and Statewide) A-52-20 Supreme Dec. 30, 2021 Oral Argument A-52-20 A-52-20 Audio for A-52-20 Close Summary A-52-20 Here, sufficient evidence was present for a reasonable jury to find that what Livingston Township Councilmembers perceived to be Police Chief Handschuch’s discriminatory attitude toward Township Manager Meade influenced the Council’s decision to terminate her, in violation of the LAD. Accordingly, the Court reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands this matter for trial. Close
  • Todd B. Glassman v. Steven P. Friedel, M.D. (085273) (Monmouth County and Statewide) A-48/49/50/51-20 Supreme Dec. 23, 2021 Oral Argument A-48/49/50/51-20 A-48/49/50/51-20 Audio for A-48/49/50/51-20 Close Summary A-48/49/50/51-20 The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the Ciluffo pro tanto credit does not further the legislative intent expressed in the Comparative Negligence Act and does not reflect developments in case law over the past four decades. In its stead, the Court sets forth a procedure to apportion any damages assessed in the trial of this case and future successive-tortfeasor cases in which the plaintiff settles with the initial tortfeasors prior to trial. Close
  • Cooper Hospital University Medical Center v. Selective Insurance Company of America (085211) (Camden County and Statewide) A-46-20 Supreme Dec. 22, 2021 Oral Argument A-46-20 Part 1 Audio for Part 1 Part 2 Audio for Part 2 Close Summary A-46-20 Because Mecouch was a Medicare enrollee in 2016, Cooper -- a Medicare provider -- was required to bill and accept payment from Medicare, which promptly covered Mecouch’s medical expenses in accordance with its fee schedule. Cooper could not seek payment from Selective other than for reimbursement of the Medicare co-payments and deductibles. Close
  • State v. Keith Terres (084778)(Salem County & Statewide) A-45-20 Supreme Jan. 20, 2022 Oral Argument A-45-20 A-45-20 Audio for A-45-20 Close Summary A-45-20 When an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. This sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep. Here, a protective sweep was not warranted in the Radel case but was constitutionally justified in the Terres case. Close
  • State v. Christopher Radel (085129)(Passaic County & Statewide) A-44-20 Supreme Jan. 20, 2022 Oral Argument A-44-20 A-44-20 Audio for A-44-20 Close Summary A-44-20 When an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. This sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep. Here, a protective sweep was not warranted in the Radel case but was constitutionally justified in the Terres case. Close
  • State v. James C. Zarate (084516)(Morris County and Statewide) A-43-20 Supreme Jan. 10, 2022 Oral Argument A-43-20 A-43-20 Audio for A-43-20 Close Summary A-43-20 *The statutory framework for sentencing juveniles, if not addressed, will contravene Article I, Paragraph 12 of the State Constitution. To remedy the concerns defendants raise and save the statute from constitutional infirmity, the Court will permit juvenile offenders convicted under the law to petition for a review of their sentence after they have served two decades in prison. At that time, judges will assess a series of factors the United States Supreme Court has set forth in Miller v. Alabama , which are designed to consider the "mitigating qualities of youth." 567 U.S. 460, 476-78 (2012). Close
  • State v. James Comer (084509)(Essex County and Statewide) A-42-20 Supreme Jan. 10, 2022 Oral Argument A-42-20 A-42-20 Audio for A-42-20 Close Summary A-42-20 *The statutory framework for sentencing juveniles, if not addressed, will contravene Article I, Paragraph 12 of the State Constitution. To remedy the concerns defendants raise and save the statute from constitutional infirmity, the Court will permit juvenile offenders convicted under the law to petition for a review of their sentence after they have served two decades in prison. At that time, judges will assess a series of factors the United States Supreme Court has set forth in Miller v. Alabama , which are designed to consider the "mitigating qualities of youth." 567 U.S. 460, 476-78 (2012). Close
  • State v. Bradley C. Thompson (085260) (Camden County & Statewide) A-41-20 Supreme June 2, 2022 Oral Argument A-41-20 Part 1 Audio for Part 1 Part 2 Audio for Part 2 Close Summary A-41-20 A plain reading of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6(c) reveals that the Legislature intended the statute of limitations to begin to run once the State was in possession of both the physical evidence from the crime and the suspect’s DNA. To hold otherwise would contradict the language of the statute which directs the statute of limitations to begin when the State is in possession of both items needed to generate a match. To find that the statute of limitations begins when a match is confirmed would render the second half of the provision superfluous. Here, the statute of limitations began to run in 2010, when the FBI’s updated scientific guidance rendered the Lab capable of generating a match based on the DNA samples in its possession. Close
  • State v. Jamar J. Myers (082858)(Mercer County & Statewide) A-40-20 Supreme Jan. 25, 2022 Oral Argument A-40-20 A-40-20 Audio for A-40-20 Close Summary A-40-20 The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Close
  • State v. Peter Nyema (085146)(Mercer County & Statewide) A-39-20 Supreme Jan. 25, 2022 Oral Argument A-39-20 A-39-20 Audio for A-39-20 Close Summary A-39-20 The only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny. Close
  • G.C. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (084417) (Statewide) A-35/36/37-20 Supreme Nov. 18, 2021 Oral Argument A-35/36/37-20 Part 1 Audio for Part 1 Part 2 Audio for Part 2 Close Summary A-35/36/37-20 The Court affirms the Appellate Division’s invalidation of N.J.A.C. 10:72-4.4(d)(1) as inconsistent with its state enabling legislation and contrary to legislative intent. But the Court has grave concerns that the regulation’s method of operation is also inconsistent with the federal Medicaid law. The Court accordingly vacates that portion of the Appellate Division’s analysis that rejected the federal-law argument by cross-petitioners. Close
  • Libertarians for Transparent Government v. Cumberland County (084956) (Cumberland County & Statewide) A-34-20 Supreme March 7, 2022 Oral Argument A-34-20 A-34-20 Audio for A-34-20 Close Summary A-34-20 Most personnel records are confidential under OPRA. But under the law’s plain language, certain items qualify as a government record including a person’s name, title, "date of separation and the reason therefor." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-10. To the extent that information appears in a settlement agreement, the record should be available to the public after appropriate redactions are made. Close
  • State v. Omar Vega-Larregui (085288) (Mercer County & Statewide) A-33-20 Supreme April 28, 2021 Oral Argument A-33-20 A-33-20 Audio for A-33-20 Close Summary A-33-20 The Court has the constitutional authority to make rules and procedures for all courts of this state, including the grand jury; the Court’s authorization of a virtual format for the selection of grand jurors and grand jury presentations during a lethal pandemic does not violate the State Constitution’s separation of powers. There is no support for the facial constitutional challenge to the temporary use of the virtual grand jury during the current public health crisis, and virtual grand jury proceedings do not facially violate the fundamental fairness doctrine. In individual cases where a defendant claims that an alleged error or defect undermined the fairness of the proceeding, a challenge may be mounted. But in this case, no error undermined the integrity of the grand jury proceeding; nor is there a basis for the dismissal of the indictment. Close
  • In the Matter of the Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees (085186)(Statewide) M-550-20 Supreme Feb. 11, 2021 Oral Argument M-550-20 M-550-20 Audio for M-550-20 Close Summary M-550-20 *Section 19(f) of the CJRA offers a path for potential relief under the present circumstances. Under that provision, N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(f), individual defendants can apply to reopen detention hearings if they can present information that was not known at the time of the initial hearing and that “has a material bearing” on the release decision. Close
  • Brenda Gilbert v. Kenyatta K. Stewart, Esq. (084860) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-32-20 Supreme July 21, 2021 Oral Argument A-32-20 A-32-20 Audio for A-32-20 Close Summary A-32-20 There are facts that support plaintiff’s claim that, had defendant not breached his duty by advising her to accept a guilty plea for offenses she did not commit, there would have been (1) no conviction to report, which would mean (2) no failure to report the conviction, which would mean (3) no inquiry leading to the discovery of prior failures to report, which, in turn, would mean (4) no imposition of disciplinary charges or the other adverse consequences plaintiff asserts as damages. Under the circumstances presented here, a reasonable jury could find that defendant’s breach of his professional duty was a substantial factor in -- and thus a proximate cause of -- plaintiff’s harm. Close
  • In re Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive Nos. 2020-05 and 2020-06 (085017) (Mercer County & Statewide) A-26/27/28/29/30-20 Supreme June 7, 2021 Oral Argument A-26/27/28/29/30-20 Part 1 Audio for Part 1 Part 2 Audio for Part 2 Close Summary A-26/27/28/29/30-20 *The Attorney General had the authority to issue the Directives, which satisfy the deferential standard of review for final agency decisions. The Directives are designed to enhance public trust and confidence in law enforcement, to deter misconduct, to improve transparency and accountability in the disciplinary process, and to identify repeat offenders who may try to move from one sensitive position to another. In short, the Directives are consistent with legislative policies and rest on a reasonable basis. Close
  • State v. David Chavies (084999) (Mercer County & Statewide) A-25-20 Supreme July 12, 2021 Oral Argument A-25-20 A-25-20 Audio for A-25-20 Close Summary A-25-20 NERA mandates that a defendant serve 85% of the sentence "actually imposed" for certain crimes before becoming eligible for parole. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(b). Allowing defendants to proceed with a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion prior to serving that 85% would circumvent the Legislature’s objectives and its approach to violent crimes. Moreover, the timing of defendant’s motion aside, he failed to meet his burden under Priester since he cannot prove the necessary devastating effect that incarceration had on his health, in addition to various other Priester factors. Close