- DCPP VS. C.A. AND C.J., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF C.J. AND C.J. (FG-18-0108-20, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0817-21/A-0819-21 Appellate June 1, 2023
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ISLAM GAD (17-12-0824 AND 18-11-0666, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1659-19 Appellate Aug. 16, 2023
- 800 SYLVAN AVENUE LLC VS. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, ET AL. (L-9088-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2309-19 Appellate Aug. 16, 2023
- ANA A. DELOAZ VS. SCOTT A. GOLER, D.P.M., ET AL. (L-1636-20, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0793-21 Appellate Aug. 16, 2023
- SARA ANN EDMONDSON VS. LILLISTON FORD (L-0089-22, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3286-21 Appellate Aug. 16, 2023
- State v. Oscar R. Juracan-Juracan (087849) (Hudson County & Statewide) A-32-22 Supreme Aug. 15, 2023 Oral Argument A-32-22 A-32-22 - Part 1 Audio for A-32-22 - Part 1 A-32-22 - Part 2 Audio for A-32-22 - Part 2 Close Summary A-32-22 In a criminal jury trial, there is a presumption that foreign language interpretation services will be provided in person, which is consistent with the New Jersey Judiciary’s longstanding practice. The Court sets forth guidelines and factors to assist trial courts in deciding whether VRI should be used during criminal jury trials, and it remands the matter for the trial court to reconsider whether VRI is appropriate in the current case after assessing those factors. Close
- William and Teresa Poku v Borough of Red Bank 07567-2022 Tax Aug. 15, 2023
- MARK CHERNALIS, ET AL. VS. DEBRA TAYLOR, ESQ., ET AL. (L-7619-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3958-19 Appellate Aug. 17, 2023
- IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.L. (SVP-813-20, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3766-20 Appellate Aug. 17, 2023
- MICHELE COLÓN VS. WORLD MISSION SOCIETY, CHURCH OF GOD, ET AL. (L-3007-13 AND L-6490-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3336-21 Appellate Aug. 17, 2023
- DOROTHY ENRIQUEZ VS. JIM DENGES, ET AL. (SC-000453-22, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3746-21 Appellate Aug. 17, 2023
- BALAKRISHNA SARAVANAN KESAVAN VS. LAKSHMI LEKHA BALAKRISHNA SARAVANAN (FM-10-0142-12, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2338-20 Appellate Aug. 18, 2023
- MEDRELL JOHNSON VS. NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS SERVICE, ET AL. (L-9098-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2537-20 Appellate Aug. 18, 2023
- CITY OF OCEAN CITY VS. EDWIN YUST, ET AL. (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION) A-1391-21 Appellate Aug. 18, 2023
- AVA SATZ VS. ALLEN SATZ (FM-02-2630-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3535-21 Appellate Aug. 18, 2023 Summary A-3535-21 Defendant appeals from Family Part orders enforcing provisions of a marital settlement agreement (MSA). A critical area of dispute centered on plaintiff's desire to obtain a get —a divorce recognized under Jewish religious law through a process known as a beis din proceeding. Before a verdict was reached in the Family Part divorce trial, the parties reached an agreement on all issues, including each party's obligations with respect to participation in beis din proceedings. The court rejects defendant's argument that the Family Part judge violated his First Amendment rights by ordering him to participate in beis din proceedings and to sign an arbitration agreement with the beis din . The court acknowledges the fundamental principle that civil courts may not become entangled in religious proceedings. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause bars a state from placing its support behind a religious belief, while the Free Exercise Clause bars a state from interfering with the practice of religion. U.S. Const. amend. I. The court concludes the Family Part judge was asked to enforce a civil contract, not a religious one. The court holds the MSA is a legally binding contract based on ample consideration from both parties and entered into knowingly and voluntarily. The Family Part judge therefore had the lawful authority to enforce the agreement as written. New Jersey Supreme Court precedent permits civil courts to resolve controversies involving religious groups if resolution can be achieved by reference to neutral principles of law and does not require the interpretation of religious doctrine. Defendant agreed in the MSA to abide by the beis din ruling, whatever that might be. The Family Part judge did not interpret religious doctrine and scrupulously avoided entanglement with religion because the judge applied well-established principles of civil contract law, not rabbinical law. The latter body of law remained solely within the province of the beis din and was not interpreted or applied by the Family Part judge. The court concludes that the orders defendant challenges served the secular purpose of enforcing the parties' contractual obligations under the MSA, which in turn serves the secular purpose of encouraging divorce litigants to resolve their disputes by negotiating and entering an MSA. Close
- AVA SATZ VS. ALLEN SATZ (FM-02-2630-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3854-21 Appellate Aug. 18, 2023
- C.C.V., ET AL. VS. NEW HORIZONS IN AUTISM, INC., ET AL. (L-3080-19, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2023-21 Appellate Aug. 21, 2023
- RAYMOND GRACE VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-3334-21 Appellate Aug. 21, 2023
- ALLEN SATZ VS. JOSEPH SIRAGUSA (L-2165-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3412-21 Appellate Aug. 21, 2023
- SIMON LAW GROUP VS. NEW JERSEY POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, ET AL. (L-0706-21, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0341-22 Appellate Aug. 21, 2023