The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in State v. Arrington. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Can a criminal defendant advance an insanity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 without expert testimony?"...
On this date in 1992, the Supreme Court decided Sica v. Wall Township Board of Adjustment, 127 N.J. 152 (1992). [Disclosure: I argued this case for the successful plaintiff]. Justice Pollock's opinion for a unanimous Court addressed a question that arose out of Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987). There, the Court held that a use variance applicant must satisfy an enhanced standard of proof that the variance is not inconsistent with the intent of the master plan and zoning ordinances. The question in Sica was whether that enhanced standard applied to inherently beneficial uses. The Court said that it did not....
Musker v. Suuchi, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). The question presented in this appeal, as stated by Justice Fasciale in his unanimous opinion, was "whether ‘commissions' are considered ‘wages' under the Wage Payment Law (WPL), N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 to -4.15, and are therefore subject to the WPL's protections." As summarized here, both the Law Division and the Appellate Division granted a defense motion for summary judgment, holding that "commissions" were not "wages" but were "supplementary incentives" not covered by the WPL....
It's time to catch up with the courts again. Last week, the Supreme Court issued two opinions, while the Appellate Division published one decision. Here are summaries:...
As discussed here, last September the Supreme Court announced that many oral arguments in the Appellate Division would henceforth be livestreamed, as Supreme Court oral arguments have been since 2005. Briefs in many appeals to be argued orally were to be posted online as well....
The Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it has granted leave to appeal in two matters. The first of those cases is State v. Miles. The question presented in that appeal, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Was defendant entitled to discovery related to the State's use of facial recognition technology, see State v. Arteaga, 476 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2023)? Relying on Arteaga, where the Appellate Division had approved such discovery, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished order, affirmed the Law Division's similar ruling here....
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new appeals. All five involve opinions by three-judge panels of the Appellate Division. But that is where the similarities end. One appeal has an expedited briefing schedule, that appeal and two others are before the Court on grants of certification, and the other two are matters in which the Court granted leave to appeal on somewhat similarly phrased questions presented. All but one of the Appellate Division's opinions appealed from were unpublished ones....
In re Opinion No. 745 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, __ N.J. ___ (2025). Rule 1:39-6(d) creates an exception to the general principle, embodied in Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") 7.2(c) and 7.3(d), that New Jersey attorneys may not pay referral fees, with only limited exceptions. The exception in Rule 1:39-6(d) permits only attorneys who have satisfied the requirements of becoming certified by the Supreme Court in a particular area of practice to pay referral fees....
On February 12, 1951, the Supreme Court decided Lang v. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp., 6 N.J. 333 (1951). The Court's unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Vanderbilt, appears to be the first decision from the Court relating to principles of sanctions for discovery violations....
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in seven new appeals. Two of those matters (one civil and one criminal) involve leave to appeal, while the others are before the Court on grants of certification....