- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROSE ZAMPINO (CP-0265-2021, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3408-21 Appellate July 21, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDREA CUMMINGS (19-10-0584, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0532-20 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SEAN BRENNAN (19-044, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1951-20 Appellate July 24, 2023
- CAPTAIN LOUIS BETTINELLI VS. NEW JERSEY MARITIME PILOT & DOCKING PILOT COMMISSION, ET AL. (C-000063-21, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3165-20 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MOHAMED E. ABDALLAH (16-06-1040, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0142-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ABRAHAM ROMAN (13-07-0651, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0432-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MOHAMED S. SHABAAN (6252, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0559-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAHEEM CLEVELAND (12-03-0875, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1547-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALAN P. CARRINO (17-06-0733, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1837-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- HARRY KUSKIN 2008 IRREVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL. VS. PNC FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., ET AL. (L-0383-17, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1937-21 Appellate July 24, 2023
- RYAN MURPHY, ET AL. VS. 113 EAST CEDAR, LLC, ET AL. (DC-008522-22, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2430-22 Appellate July 24, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL A. MCLEOD (15-09-0135, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3225-20 Appellate July 25, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WAYNE GREENE (09-09-0799, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3254-20 Appellate July 25, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY ADAMS, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-0567-21 Appellate July 25, 2023
- JOSEPH JOHNSON, ET AL. VS. CITY OF HOBOKEN, ET AL. (L-2813-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) Previously filed on July 25, 2023 A-1596-21 Appellate July 25, 2023 Summary A-1596-21 Plaintiffs sued defendants, a law firm and three individuals associated with the firm, claiming that their rights of privacy had been violated when defendants failed to redact their personal identifiers contrary to the directive of Rule 1:38-7. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants violated one plaintiff's right of privacy by including records of that plaintiff's arrest and criminal charges. The court holds that Rule 1:38-7 did not create a private cause of action for a violation of the Rule . Instead, the remedy for a violation of Rule 1:38-7 is set forth in the Rule , which states that a party or other interested individual can move, on an expedited basis, to replace documents containing unredacted personal identifiers with redacted documents. R. 1:38-7(g). The court also holds that plaintiffs failed to state viable causes of action for invasions of privacy or infliction of emotional distress. Accordingly, the court affirms the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint. Close
- IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARY L. WILSON, DECEASED (P-000521-20. BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1663-21 Appellate July 25, 2023
- MHC PINE RIDGE AT CRESTWOOD, LLC VS. HENRY SKIDMORE, ET AL. (LT-001015-21, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2027-21 Appellate July 25, 2023
- Elizabeth Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc. (085547) (Bergen County & Statewide) A-21/23-21 Supreme July 25, 2023 Oral Argument A-21/23-21 A-20/21/22/23-21 Audio for A-20/21/22/23-21 Close Summary A-21/23-21 510(k) evidence is generally inadmissible because the 510(k) clearance process solely determines substantial equivalency, and not safety and efficacy. However, in a products liability claim premised not only on principles of negligence, but particularly on the reasonableness of a manufacturer’s conduct in not performing clinical trials or studies, evidence of 510(k) clearance has significant probative value under N.J.R.E. 401 that is not substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice and potential juror confusion under N.J.R.E. 403. Therefore, under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division. However, the Court parts ways with the Appellate Division’s decision as to its suggestion that the scope and admissibility of 510(k) evidence should be determined in a Rule 104 hearing. Instead, the scope and admissibility of 510(k) evidence should be resolved at the hearing on a motion in limine, which is how the issue was and, presumably, will be raised. Section 5 of the PLA does not bar plaintiffs’ recovery of punitive damages, and because evidence of 510(k) clearance should have been admitted in the first stage of trial as relevant to the reasonableness of Bard’s conduct in not performing clinical trials or studies, it would also be admissible in the second, punitive damages stage. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RYAN D. WILKINS (19-02-0402, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0924-20 Appellate July 26, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEREEM T. TAYLOR (19-06-1495, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1381-20 Appellate July 26, 2023