This case concerned a challenge to New Jersey's legislative redistricting plan after the 2000 Census, which divided Newark and Jersey City into three districts each. The Legislative Apportionment Commission adopted the plan, following an impasse between party-appointed members and the appointment of an independent tiebreaker, to satisfy federal equal protection and Voting Rights Act requirements that had guided redistricting since the 1960s. Plaintiffs argued the divisions violated the state constitution's mandate to preserve municipal boundaries. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state boundary requirement could not be enforced, as doing so would violate the Supremacy Clause by conflicting with federal law on vote dilution and minority voting protections. The core reasoning was that no compliant redistricting plan since 1964 had kept the two largest cities intact, and federal standards now preclude reverting to undivided districts.

electionscivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff injured when a large gate in a township park swung into his car windshield, causing neck, back, and leg injuries including disc herniation and radiculopathy. The trial court and Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the Township of Mantua, ruling that the injuries did not satisfy the New Jersey Tort Claims Act threshold requiring a substantial permanent loss of a bodily function for pain and suffering damages. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed and remanded, concluding that objective medical evidence created a prima facie case meeting the threshold by showing permanent effects that substantially limited activities such as standing, sitting, walking, and recreation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge to modifications made to three inter vivos trusts created by Laura J. Niles, an elderly woman with dementia, after she was allegedly unduly influenced by a mother-son team to appoint the son as trustee and provide them with economic benefits. The former trustee and primary beneficiary sued to remove the new trustee and restore the trust assets. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that when a fiduciary obtains substantial benefits through undue influence, they can be required to pay the reasonable counsel fees incurred by others in litigation to undo the improper changes and restore the estate, creating an exception to the general American Rule against fee-shifting. The court determined that the mother and son should be jointly and severally liable for such fees.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a wrongful death claim brought by the widow of a worker who suffocated after falling into a sand hopper at a concrete pipe plant. The plaintiff alleged that the employer's knowing failure to correct OSHA-cited safety violations in confined spaces, combined with its deceptive reports to OSHA claiming the hazards had been fixed, amounted to an intentional wrong that fell outside the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court and Appellate Division had granted summary judgment to the employer, finding no substantial certainty of injury. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that the evidence of deliberate OSHA violations and intentional misrepresentations raised a factual issue under the substantial-certainty standard established in Millison and Laidlow, allowing the intentional-tort claim to proceed.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved an employee, Joseph Tomeo, who was injured while operating a snow blower with a disabled safety lever at his employer's premises. Tomeo sued his employer, Thomas Whitesell Construction Co., claiming negligence in deactivating the safety device and inadequate training, seeking to overcome the immunity provided by the Workers' Compensation Act through the "intentional wrong" exception. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's denial of summary judgment to the employer, holding that the employer's conduct did not satisfy the intentional wrong standard because there was no evidence that the employer intended to cause injury or that injury was substantially certain to occur. The court reasoned that merely disabling a safety device without additional factors like prior incidents or deception does not meet the high bar for allowing a common-law tort action outside workers' compensation.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Tyler, the defendant was charged with third-degree heroin possession, distribution, and school-zone distribution offenses based on a police observation. During jury selection, a prospective juror disclosed at sidebar that her father had been prosecuted for sexually abusing her eight years earlier; after the jury was sworn, another juror (G.B.) revealed racial bias. The trial court found G.B. unfit due to prejudice but refused to excuse her until she served one day, apparently to penalize her for attempting to avoid jury duty, and the Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that no prejudice to the defendant had been shown. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial judge failed to perform the gatekeeping function of ensuring an impartial jury; once bias was identified before opening statements, the juror should have been removed for cause under Rule 1:8-2(d)(1), and prejudice to the defendant is presumed when the integrity of the jury-selection process is compromised.

criminal lawprocedure