In re Tom Malinowski Petition for Nomination for General Election, November 8, 2022, for United States House of Representatives New Jersey Congressional District 7, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This case was an "Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week," as discussed here. Today, in an opinion by Judge Gilson, the Appellate Division held that New Jersey's "anti-fusion" statute, N.J.S.A. 19:13-8, which prohibits a candidate for public office from appearing on a ballot on more than one party line, does not violate the New Jersey Constitution. This ruling affirms a decision by the Secretary of State that rejected, citing that same statute, a request by the Moderate Party to Tom Malinowski as its nominee on the November 2022 general election ballot for the United States House of Representatives, 7th Congressional District because Malinowski was already on the ballot as the nominee of the Democratic Party....
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 All but one of the Appellate Division's opinions appealed from were unpublished ones....
On this date in 2004, the Supreme Court decided Smith v. SBC Communications, Inc., 178 N.J. 265 (2004). The case was a putative Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") and breach of contract class action against Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Plaintiff alleged that defendants falsely advertised that prepaid calling cards purchased at BJ's would yield substantially more calling time than plaintiff actually received....
Brehme v. Irwin, 259 N.J.505 (2025). One might intuitively think that a plaintiff who accepts full payment of a civil judgment for damages from an auto accident including pain and suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, and past lost wages, and signs a warrant to satisfy judgment cannot then an appeal a ruling on a motion in limine that barred evidence of future medical expenses....
With the coming of the new year, this blog went onto a new platform. That fact, along with a Supreme Court oral argument and a Committee on Character hearing last week, has left this blog behind as 2025 begins. Our appellate courts, however, have been active. Here are summaries of their January 2025 published opinions to date:...
Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). The first signed opinion of the current Term was by Justice Fasciale. The Court addressed issues relating to whether Hartford Underwriters...
On December 4, 1973, the Supreme Court decided Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J. 85 (1973). The Bureau of Securities had suspended the registration of Mayflower, a...
Filings in the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court in the last few days interfered with blogging about three published opinions that the Appellate Division issued during that time. Here...
Today is Election Day, and courts are closed. That offers the opportunity to catch up with the Appellate Division, which issued three published opinions last week. Here are summaries of...
Tomorrow morning, Wednesday, October 16, Part D will hear oral arguments in Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office v. Office of the Attorney General Department of Law and Public Safety. The appeal...
