- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JORGE M. RAMOS-COMPRES (13-06-0607, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2851-21 Appellate Jan. 22, 2025
- LES PANEK, ET AL. VS. JOSEPH ZECCA, ET AL. (L-1875-19, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0709-22 Appellate Jan. 22, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HASSAN J. SLY (14-08-1130, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2543-22 Appellate Jan. 22, 2025
- JANET YIJUAN FOU VS. KEVIN KERVENG TUNG PC, ET AL. (L-6259-12, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3377-22 Appellate Jan. 22, 2025
- Atlanta Int'l Ins. Co. v. Johnson and Johnson MID-L-3563-19 Trial Jan. 21, 2025
- Earneka Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health (089441) (Union County and Statewide) A-43-23 Supreme Jan. 22, 2025 Oral Argument A-43-23 A-43-23 Part-1 Audio for A-43-23 Part-1 A-43-23 Part-2 Audio for A-43-23 Part-2 Close Summary A-43-23 When a defending physician practices in more than one specialty and the treatment involved falls within any of that physician’s specialty areas, then an AOM from a physician specializing in one of those specialties is sufficient. Close
- Fairfield Motors, Inc. v. Dipiano MRS-L-1909-17 Trial Jan. 21, 2025
- Ho v. Morris Anesthesia Group, P.A. MRS-L-753-20 Trial Jan. 21, 2025
- Shah v. Shroff, et al. CAM-L-2934-20 Trial Jan. 21, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALI BASS (11-11-2085, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2494-22 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- S.L. VS. D.D. (FV-08-1390-23 AND FV-08-1714-23, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3681-22 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- JEAN-PHILIPPE DIERO VS. ERIC S. KIM, ET AL. (L-1178-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0393-23 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- SEBASTIAN ROJAS-GOMEZ VS. JAMES TYLICZKA (L-1413-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0606-23 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- S.M. VS. R.R.C. (FM-18-0639-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1506-23 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHANIE MARTINEZ (22-02-0395, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED) A-0431-23 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025 Summary A-0431-23 The primary issue in this appeal concerns the applicability of self-defense to all categories of homicide. The court reaffirms the well-settled principle that self-defense, once found by a jury, shall serve as a complete justification for murder as well as all manslaughter offenses charged or otherwise permitted for consideration as lesser-included offenses. Here, the jury found defendant met the self-defense test for murder but not passion/provocation manslaughter, returning a guilty verdict for the latter offense. Based on that facially inconsistent verdict, our jurisprudence, and the established precept that self-defense is a complete defense to all categories of homicide, the court reverses defendant's conviction for passion/provocation manslaughter. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court addresses defendant's remaining arguments, including the trial court declining to charge aggravated assault, the applicability of self-defense to the weapons charges, the value of Rios's vehicle as it relates to the theft charge, and a review of the sentence imposed, respectively. These arguments are largely rendered moot, affirmed, or remanded for resentencing. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHANIE MARTINEZ (22-02-0395, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0431-23 – STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHANIE MARTINEZ (22-02-0395, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED), [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication.], A-0431-23 Appellate Jan. 23, 2025
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRIS E. LEBRON (19-04-0370 AND 19-06-0580, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0194-22 Appellate Jan. 24, 2025
- MICHAEL TAFFARO VS. PARVIN "PAT" MOAYER (DC-008578-20 AND DC-012301-21, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-1357-22/A-1360-22 Appellate Jan. 24, 2025
- N.A.R., INC., ETC. VS. EASTERN OUTDOOR FURNISHINGS, ET AL. (L-3511-20, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3990-22 Appellate Jan. 24, 2025 Summary A-3990-22 This commercial litigation mainly presents issues under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act ("NJFPA"), N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 to -15. As its principal claim in this case, defendant/third-party plaintiff Eastern Outdoor Furnishings ("Eastern Outdoor") contends that third-party defendant AMD Direct, Inc., ("AMD") violated the NJFPA in terminating Eastern Outdoor's alleged franchise to sell AMD's products. AMD denies that such a franchise relationship existed. The motion judge granted summary judgment to AMD, dismissing Eastern Outdoor's claims under the statute, upon specifically finding there was no "written agreement" establishing a franchise between the parties. Eastern Outdoor has appealed that decision, along with other rulings made by the trial court. The court affirms the motion judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing the NJFPA claims, albeit based on somewhat different reasoning. The court holds that to establish a franchise enforceable under the NJFPA, the statute does not require a comprehensive and integrated "written agreement" between the parties. Instead, N.J.S.A. 56:10-3(a) more flexibly defines a franchise to consist of a "written arrangement" that also meets various other requirements. Nonetheless, it is clear the record—even when viewed in a light most favorable to Eastern Outdoor—fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a qualifying "written arrangement." Although the court affirms dismissal of the NJFPA claims, it remands the case to adjudicate Eastern Outdoor's separate claims of tortious interference and indemnification that were not expressly addressed in the motion judge's decision. Close
- BOROUGH OF MONMOUTH BEACH VS. LOUIS P. TSAKIRIS, ET AL. (L-3205-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0356-23 Appellate Jan. 24, 2025