American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey v. County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). The ACLU of New Jersey sought five categories of records from defendant (“CPANJ”) under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to -13 (“OPRA”), and the common law right of access. As summarized here, CPANJ moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, on the grounds that CPANJ is not a “public agency” covered by OPRA, and that CPANJ was not a public entity subject to the common law right of access either. The Appellate Division affirmed in an opinion reported at 4 ..read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in five new cases. All of them are civil matters. Three of the cases involved published opinions of the Appellate Division. In D.T. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the circumstances presented, is the Archdiocese of Philadelphia subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey?” As discussed here, in an opinion reported at 477 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2023), the Appellate Division found that New Jersey courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the Dioces ..read more

State v. Jang, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). A party unhappy with a ruling by a Municipal Court may appeal to the Law Division for a trial de novo. As the Supreme Court said in State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 (2017), “[a]t a trial de novo, the court makes its own findings of fact and conclusions of law but defers to the municipal court’s credibility findings.” The State continues to bear the burden of proof at such a trial. Rule 3:23-4(b) states that “[u]pon the filing of a copy of the notice of appeal, . . . the criminal division manager’s office shall docket the appeal and shall ..read more

On April 1, 1957, the Supreme Court decided Fisch v. Manger, 24 N.J. 66 (1957). The key issue there was whether the practice of additur, under which a trial judge may, after a jury verdict, increase the amount of the verdict rather than ordering a new trial, if the defendant consents. The case involved an auto accident in which plaintiff was seriously injured. A jury awarded him just $3,000. Plaintiff moved for a new trial due to the inadequacy of the jury award. But defendants consented to an increase of the award to $7,500, so the trial judge denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Plaint ..read more

This week, the Appellate Division decided two very different kinds of arbitration matters. Yesterday, Judge Sabatino issued an opinion in Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). That case involved efforts of school districts to discipline or remove tenured teachers or administrators for improper conduct. Until 2012, such matters were handled in administrative hearings. But in 2012, the Legislature replaced that system with an arbitration procedure instead. The “novel issue” before the Appellate Division was “whether, under this revised system, a tenure arbitr ..read more

State v. Harrell, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). As discussed here, this case presented the following question for the Supreme Court: “Under the circumstances presented, is the alleged victim’s recorded statement from when she was eight years old admissible at trial now when she is fifteen and would testify that she recalls only one of the incidents of alleged sexual assault described in that statement?” The issue was whether admitting the testimony deprived defendant of the constitutional right to confront his accuser. The lower courts reached different conclusions on that issue. The Law Division barre ..read more

Robey v. SPARC Group, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). Today saw a relatively rare 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court. The majority consisted of Justice Solomon, the author of the majority opinion, Chief Justice Rabner, and Justices Patterson and Pierre-Louis. Justice Fasciale authored the dissent, in which Justices Wainer Apter and Noriega joined. The case, a putative consumer class action, involved allegations that illusory discounts on clothing sold by Aeropostale violated the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. (“the CFA”), and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act, N ..read more

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both cases were the subject of published opinions in the Appellate Division. In 257-261 20th Avenue Realty, LLC v. Roberto, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Is the Tax Sale Law, which authorizes the purchaser of a tax sale certificate to acquire title to real property by foreclosing the equity of redemption of all outstanding interests (N.J.S.A. 54:5-1 to -137), unconstitutional under the decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023); and if not, did exceptiona ..read more

On this date in 1988, the Supreme Court decided Clowes v. Terminix Int’l, Inc., 109 N.J 575 (1988). The Court’s unanimous opinion, written by Justice Clifford, stated that “[t]he principal issue posed by this appeal is whether alcoholism is to be deemed a handicap under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42” (“the LAD”). Plaintiff had been employed by defendant as a pest control salesman. “His employment duties included inspecting properties for pests (e.g., roaches and the like), instructing property owners on preventive measures, prescribing a course of treatment ..read more

Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). Judge Vanek wrote this opinion for the Appellate Division in this putative class action case. Her first sentence describes the essence of the matter: “This appeal requires us to determine whether a putative class action complaint seeking to claw back funds paid by a debtor in full satisfaction of a final default judgment, entered in a prior lawsuit filed in a different court, is barred under the entire controversy doctrine.” The Law Division applied the entire controversy doctrine. Plaintiff appealed, but the Ap ..read more