Counsel To Those Who Shape Our Future ®

RECENT NEWS

New Jersey Supreme Court to Review New Notice Requirements for Land Use Applications Imposed by Appellate Division - The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to consider arguments that the Appellate Division improperly imposed new, subjective notice requirements on developers applying for local land use approvals. On November 13, 2009, the Court granted the petitions for certification filed by a developer, American Properties, and the Ewing Township Planning Board, seeking to challenge the Appellate Division's decision in GF Properties v. Ewing Township Planning Board.
Hill Wallack LLP has filed a "friend of the court" brief with the New Jersey Supreme Court on behalf of the New Jersey Builders Association and NAIOP NJ Chapter, Inc. Click here to read more.

Local Units Must Adopt Identity Theft Policy to Comply with Newly Effective FTC Regulations - Any local unit that operates a utility or other activity that extends credit (i.e. bills consumers for utility services after they are received) must adopt an identity theft policy as required by the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). In response to the growing threat of identity theft, FTC regulations, effective as of August 1, 2009, require local utilities and those local units extending credit to adopt “red flag” practices that are intended to prevent and highlight potential instances of identity theft. Click here to read more.

Communication Data Warrants Are Not Subject to Wiretap Limits in New Jersey - In order to obtain a wiretap warrant for telephone communications, such warrants must be specific as to the dates and times of execution. Not so with data wiretaps used to monitor internet activity, according to a recent decision of New Jersey's intermediate appellate court. In State v. Finsesmith, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court held that Communication Data Warrants are not subject to date and time limitations. Click here to read more.

Is a Levy Void if a Writ is Directed to the Wrong Sheriff? You Better Make Sure That the Writ is Right - If a party that obtains a judgment against a defendant has a writ issued to a Sheriff of a certain county and then has the sheriff levy upon personal property or real property in accordance with the writ, such levy can be considered void if the writ of execution is issued to the improper sheriff. In the matter of Borromeo v. DiFlorio, 2009 WL 2391850 (App. Div. 2009), the Appellate Court addressed a matter where the plaintiff had a Writ of Execution directed to the Sheriff of Mercer County and the plaintiff then sent the Writ to the Somerset County Sheriff. The plaintiff then directed the Somerset County Sheriff to levy on the Defendant’s real property within Somerset County. Click here to read more.

Shrinking Employer Liability Under Title VII - Last month the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Huston v. The Procter & Gamble Paper Products Corporation clarified which employees qualify as “management level” in the context of Title VII hostile work environment claims. A person responsible for the mere oversight of an employee's assignment or task may not be considered "management." Click here for more  information.

New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Defendants Can Withdraw Guilty Pleas if Not Advised by Counsel That Pleading Guilty Can Result in Deportation - The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held in the case of State v. Nunez-Smith, that if a defendant is misinformed about immigration consequences of pleading guilty to criminal charges (which may result in deportation), said guilty plea may be withdrawn. This decision will have clear and far reaching implications for the state and criminal defense attorneys alike. Click here to read more.

Search and Seizure of Juvenile’s Possessions Deemed Lawful as Incident to his Arrest for Violation of Municipal Curfew Ordinance - Actions of police officers are highly scrutinized in today’s society. One context in which officers walk a fine line is deciding when a lawful search and/or seizure can occur. Adding juveniles to the mix complicates things even more. However, a recent search and seizure of a juvenile in Hazlet, New Jersey makes at least one thing clear: a juvenile on the streets after curfew without proper identification is going to result in a valid search, and lawful seizure of any illegal or stolen property found during that search. Click here to read more.

A Perceived Campaign for Termination of an Employee is Not a Basis for a Claim for Age Discrimination Under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination - In Finn v. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., the District Court of New Jersey recently concluded that there was no evidence of age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), despite allegations that the employee’s new supervisor “campaigned” to terminate the plaintiff-employee. Click here to find out more.

The Power of the School PTA: Privacy Rights of Students Limited by Appellate Court - Privacy claims by students in New Jersey schools have sparked heated debates regarding student searches, as well as the searches of their personal property and school lockers. Several parties may be involved in such a scenario – students, parents, teachers, school administrators and school boards. A recent court case takes this debate one step further – into the realm of privacy issues related to student performances in school plays and the role of parent teacher associations (PTAs). The Appellate Division of New Jersey’s Superior Court recently addressed these issues in Jeffries v. Whitney E. Houston Academy PTA, a case concerning the videotaping of student performances and how those videotapes are subsequently utilized. Click here to read more

back to top

 

Courts May Allow Juries To Hear Testimony From Qualified Medical Experts Who Do Not Personally Review MRI Films - On August 6, 2009, in Drinkard v. Hernandez (“Drinkard”) (unpublished opinion), the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey concluded that the trial court abused its discretion when it barred the testimony of the defendant’s medical expert (an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Bachman) at the time of trial. Plaintiff sought to bar the expert on the basis that the doctor did not personally review the MRI films he was commenting upon. Click here to read more.

Loss of Evidence Can Lose Your Case Before It Begins - Most people know that to prove one’s position in a lawsuit, evidence is necessary. But must a party preserve evidence even before a lawsuit is filed? If the party reasonably should know that the evidence is important to the potential lawsuit, the answer is yes. Click here to read more.

New Proposed Legislation Would Decriminalize “Sexting” by Teenagers - “Sexting” is the e-mailing by minors of nude or sexually suggestive photos of themselves to friends. Two new bills A-4069 and S-2926 would create a program in which minors charged with creating and distributing such photos would avoid prosecution by completing a course that highlights the dangers of engaging in such activity. Click here to find out more.

Judicial Notice: How It Should Not Be Used - Contested facts in a dispute between parties to a suit can not be admitted into evidence through judicial notice, as it deprives a party of its right of cross examination. This was the conclusion of the Appellate Court in the case of Palisades Collection, L.L.C. v. Graubard, 2009 WL 1025176. The Appellate Court further addressed the impact of a court admitting a contested fact by judicial notice by determining that it is critically important that a contested fact not be admitted through judicial notice when doing so would conclusively determine the central issue of the case. Click here to read more

Third Circuit Holds Trial Court May Consider Settlement Discussions to Calculate Attorney's Fees Award - Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure bars the introduction of settlement discussions at trial where such evidence is offered to prove the merit, or lack of merit of a claim, and/or the value of a disputed claim. While Rule 408 specifically provides that evidence of settlement discussions is not precluded when offered for some other purpose, the Rule does not include a comprehensive list of examples of such “purposes not prohibited.” Consequently, many exceptions to the general prohibition of Rule 408 have been developed via federal common law. Most recently, in Lohman v. Duryea Borough, the Third Circuit held, in a case of first impression, that Rule 408 does not prohibit a trial court from considering settlement discussions between the parties for purposes of calculating an award of attorney’s fees. Click here to read more.

Lawyer’s Beware!: Telling An Opposing Party “I’m Going to Cut You Up” Followed By Threatening Letter to Opposing Counsel Will Result In Reprimand. - The New Jersey Supreme Court recently disciplined a lawyer, Joel Ziegler of Maplewood, New Jersey, who allegedly told an opposing party “I’m going to cut you up into bits and pieces, put you into a box and send you to India and your parents won’t recognize you.” The Supreme Court found that Mr. Ziegler violated rules regarding requiring courtesy to participants in the legal process and prohibiting conduct detrimental to the administration of justice. Click here to find out more.

New Jersey Court Holds That Gun Dealer May Be Held Liable For Shooting Of Police Officer Where Perpetrator Used Stolen Weapon. - In a case of first impression in New Jersey, a Morris County Superior Court Judge has refused to grant statutory immunity to a gun dealer sued when an ex-employee stole a handgun from his employer dealer and shot a police officer. Click here to read more.

back to top


Copyright © 1997 - 2010 • Hill Wallack LLP •
202 Carnegie Center • Princeton, NJ 08540 • 609-924-0808
777 Township Line Road • Yardley, PA 19067 • 215-579-7700
17 Gordon's Alley • Atlantic City • NJ 08401 • 609-344-7009