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  All but one of the Appellate Division’s opinions appealed from were unpublished ones.

 The expedited appeal is Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township.  The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did plaintiffs establish that the Township Council of Berkeley Township’s denial of their petition to deannex South Seaside Park was arbitrary and unreasonable, that the denial was detrimental to the economic and social well-being of a majority of the residents of South Seaside Park, and that the deannexation would not cause a significant injury to the well-being of Berkeley Township under N.J.S.A. 40A:7-12.1?”  The Law Division overturned the Council’s denial of the deannexation petition and the Appellate Division, applying a standard of review that required a finding of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of the Township, affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.  In expediting this appeal, the Court mandated that any motion to appear as amicus curiae must be filed, together with the proposed amicus brief on the merits, by March 3.

 The two leave to appeal cases are Simpkins v. South Orange-Maplewood School District, which involves three consolidated cases, and Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education.  The former appeal presents this question:  “Under the circumstances presented, where plaintiffs allege that they were sexually abused by a former teacher on school grounds during school hours, can a public entity be held vicariously liable for those acts?”  The latter presents this somewhat different question:  “Under the circumstances presented, where plaintiff alleges that he was sexually abused by a teacher at the teacher’s apartment, can plaintiff maintain causes of action for vicarious liability and breach of fiduciary duty against the board of education?”  The same panel decided both appeals in unpublished opinions that went against the plaintiffs.  One of those opinions consumed 63 pages, including a number of lengthy footnotes, at least one of which occupied more than one full page of single-spaced type.

The question presented in In the Matter of P.T. Jibsail Family Limited Partnership Tidelands License Number 1515-06-0012.1 TDI 190001 is “Does the Tidelands Resource Council have statutory authority to fix and modify pierhead lines through the issuance of individual licenses?”  In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Appellate Division held that the Council has such power, affirming the ruling of the Council at issue.

 Finally, the only appeal in this group that is from a published Appellate Division decision is Mist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Berkley Insurance Company.  The question presented there is “Did the insurer have a duty to defend and indemnify the insured under the circumstances presented, where (i) the commercial insurance policy had a provision excluding coverage if the director or officer of the insured entity engaged in wrongful corporate acts arising out of their capacity as a director or officer of another entity, and (ii) the director or officer is alleged to have engaged in wrongful corporate acts in a dual capacity as a director or officer of the insured entity and as a director or officer of a different, uninsured entity?”  The Law Division granted partial summary judgments, and an eventual final judgment, to the plaintiff insured, but the Appellate Division reversed those rulings, directed the entry of judgment for the defendant insurer, and remanded for a determination of attorneys’ fees due to plaintiff for a period of time in which defendant had a duty to defend.