Supreme Court of New Jersey

The Court held that New Jersey lacks specific personal jurisdiction over the national organization because the plaintiffs' abuse claims do not arise out of or relate to any affirmative act that the organization took in or directed toward New Jersey.

The Court held that Myers must be allowed to withdraw his felony-murder guilty plea because he entered a single global plea agreement that expressly preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling, prevailed on that appeal, and thereby lost evidence that had also been used against him in the felony-murder case.

The Court held that Daniel’s Law imposes no mental-state requirement for actual-damages liability under N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.1(c)(1). It reached that conclusion from the statute’s text, the Legislature’s express inclusion of mental-state requirements elsewhere, and the deletion of negligence-like language in a later…

The Supreme Court of New Jersey resolved a question of first impression, holding that neither the Eminent Domain Act nor the Local Lands and Buildings Law requires a municipality to specify the particular public use for a taking within the ordinance authorizing condemnation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), which bars commercial automobile liability policies from providing an employee less uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage than the named insured, does not require UM coverage for employees up to the policy's third-party general liability limit; the…

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Patterson answered two certified questions from the Third Circuit concerning N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(f), which governs uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in commercial motor vehicle policies naming a corporate or business entity as the named insured.

The Court held that an arbitrator's award requiring East Orange custodial employees to receive one and one-half times their salary in addition to regular pay for working during COVID-19 school closures directly contradicted N.J.S.A.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Child Victims Act's removal of the Child Sexual Abuse Act's 'within the household' requirement for passive abuser liability is a substantive amendment that applies only prospectively, to acts of sexual abuse committed on or after December 1, 2019.

The Court held that expert testimony is required before a defendant may invoke diminished capacity or receive a corresponding jury instruction. Because Mustafa presented only lay evidence of unusual behavior and substance use, without evidence identifying a mental disease or defect or linking such a condition to his…

The Court held that a defendant must present qualified expert testimony to assert New Jersey’s insanity defense because diagnosing a mental disease and determining its effect on the defendant’s reasoning at the time of the offense are beyond the common experience of jurors.

The Court held that salting a minimally accumulated snow and ice condition during an ongoing storm did not constitute the unusual circumstances required to impose a duty on a commercial landowner before the storm ended.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Noriega, held that a State witness's payment of a criminal defendant's legal fees creates neither a per se nor an actual conflict of interest, and affirmed the denial of Kearney's post-conviction-relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of…

The Court held that insurance brokers, producers, and agents are not exempt from liability under the Consumer Fraud Act through a judicially created learned-professional or semi-professional exception.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Pierre-Louis, reversed the Appellate Division and held that defendant Wildgoose's PCR claims attacking the Attorney General's Jessica Lunsford Act plea-negotiation Guidelines are procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4(a) because he could have raised…

The Court held that the 1997 amendment to the Municipal Land Use Law requires applicants seeking use variances for inherently beneficial uses to make a specific showing that the variance will not substantially impair the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the trial judge correctly applied the heightened discovery standard of State v. Chambers in granting a limited in camera review of the alleged sexual assault victim's pre-incident mental health records, reversing the Appellate Division's contrary judgment.

The Court held that the Consumer Finance Licensing Act does not create an implied private right of action allowing a borrower to affirmatively void a loan contract based on an alleged licensing violation.

The Court held that the Council on Local Mandates is subject to judicial review when the question is whether it acted within the constitutional and statutory scope of its authority.

The Court held that motor-vehicle dealers who requested hearings before their licenses were suspended were entitled to in-person hearings because their submissions presented colorable factual disputes or potentially mitigating circumstances.

The Court held that the equitable distribution statute reaches only the portion of Thieme’s deferred compensation earned during the parties’ marriage, not the portion earned during their prior cohabitation.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed an Appellate Division judgment that had affirmed summary judgment for Globe Motor Company and the Margolis Law Firm on their breach-of-contract claim arising from a $75,000 settlement payment later challenged by a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee.

The Court held that a clear and unequivocal property-settlement provision requiring termination of alimony upon the recipient spouse’s cohabitation must be enforced when the agreement was entered knowingly and voluntarily, with independent counsel and without fraud, coercion, overreaching, or unconscionability.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that an insurer need not demonstrate appreciable prejudice before disclaiming coverage under a Directors and Officers "claims made" policy where a sophisticated, broker-represented insured breached the policy's clear condition precedent to report a claim both within the policy period…

The Court held that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate and present readily available evidence corroborating defendant's alibi.

The Court held that the automobile-search rule requiring probable cause plus separate exigent circumstances was unsound and unworkable, and restored a state constitutional rule permitting an on-scene warrantless search when probable cause arises from unforeseeable and spontaneous circumstances.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's remand of a trial court's limited duration alimony award ($18,000 per month for eleven years) in a nearly fifteen-year marriage, finding that the appellate panel inadvertently created a bright-line rule - that a fifteen-year marriage is 'not short-term'…

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the trial court properly struck plaintiffs' engineering expert's causation opinion as a net opinion because it was unsupported by, and directly contradicted, the uncontroverted testimony of the driver and her passenger that the driver's view of oncoming traffic was…

The Court held that the arbitration provision in the consumer debt-adjustment contract was unenforceable because it did not clearly and unambiguously inform the consumer that arbitration replaced the right to pursue claims in court.

The Court held that plaintiffs were required to present expert testimony to establish the standard of care applicable to private fire-sprinkler inspectors because the inspection process and governing regulatory scheme were beyond the ken of an average juror.

The Court upheld the jury’s finding that Felton knowingly sold the property to Zaman and rejected her claims under the Consumer Fraud Act and the unauthorized-practice-of-law principles governing attorney-free residential closings.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the State must defend and indemnify county prosecutor employees sued for actions taken in the course of law‑enforcement duties, reversing the Attorney General’s denial and remanding for further proceedings; the Court also found the Attorney General’s administrative…

The Court held that police lawfully stopped the van and conducted a limited protective sweep of its passenger compartment based on the totality of circumstances, including two late-night emergency calls, the high-crime location, the occupants' furtive movements, and the driver's hesitation to exit.

The Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Family Part's refusal to terminate the incarcerated father's parental rights because the Division did not prove all four statutory termination criteria by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court held that a parent seeking to rebut the presumption that a transfer of property to an adult child was a gift must do so by clear and convincing evidence, limited to evidence antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or immediately following the transfer, together with statements by the parties concerning the…

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed a twenty-year negotiated-plea sentence for first-degree aggravated manslaughter and held that the sentencing court failed to adequately explain its findings on aggravating factor one (nature and circumstances of the offense) and aggravating factor nine (need for deterrence), or…

The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division's affirmance of the denial of Oscar Porter's post-conviction-relief (PCR) petition without an evidentiary hearing.

The Court held that a foreclosure-rescue transaction involving the transfer of a homeowner's property for nominal consideration, misleading documents, and a costly repurchase option constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.

Responding to a motion to vacate a foreclosure default judgment entered after the Guillaumes never answered US Bank's complaint, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified the Appellate Division's judgment.

After a remand hearing before a Special Master featuring seven experts and more than 200 published scientific studies, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Manson/Madison two-part test for admitting eyewitness identification evidence is inadequate and must be revised.

The Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court's determination that plaintiff failed to prove delivery of most of the goods for which it sought payment, while limiting plaintiff's recovery to $15,000 in conceded unpaid invoices.