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....

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....