James H. Coleman

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

The case concerned a conviction for second-degree vehicular homicide under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5b, where the defendant was found to have operated her vehicle recklessly, including while intoxicated, resulting in a passenger's death. The trial judge, after the jury convicted the defendant, separately found beyond a reasonable doubt that she had been intoxicated and imposed a three-year sentence with a mandatory three-year parole disqualification under the statute's sentencing enhancement. The defendant argued that the intoxication finding was an element of the offense that the jury was required to decide. The court held that intoxication is a sentencing factor rather than an element of the crime, so the jury was not constitutionally required to determine it, and reinstated the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a medical malpractice wrongful death action filed in 1995 by the administrator and family of a deceased patient against Atlantic City Medical Center and various physicians and nurses, alleging negligence in diagnosis and treatment leading to the patient's death in 1993. The sole issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint due to the unavailability of plaintiffs' medical expert for the specially scheduled February 2001 trial. The Court concluded that the trial court should reassess its ruling under the unique facts presented, which included extensive prior case management, multiple adjournment requests and denials, the expert's last-minute unavailability after travel, and related issues of attorney disclosure. The opinion emphasized attorneys' duties under RPC 3.3(a)(5) to disclose material facts to the tribunal to prevent misleading the court on procedural matters affecting case management.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involved a contract dispute in which plaintiff Van Note-Harvey Associates sought payment from defendant Township of East Hanover for engineering services on a sewer project, including a claim for contractual prejudgment interest on overdue accounts receivable under the parties' agreement. The trial court denied the interest claim after a jury verdict on the underlying amounts, applying an equitable standard rather than the contract terms, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the contract's specific provisions requiring interest on late payments must be enforced against the public entity as they would against a private party, and remanded for a determination of the interest amount based on the contractual language. The court noted that the parties had effectively waived a jury trial on the interest issue, which would be decided by the judge on remand while respecting the jury's other findings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a firefighter's claim for workers' compensation benefits after developing pulmonary emphysema following 23 years of exposure to smoke, chemicals, and toxins on the job, despite also having a smoking history. The Judge of Compensation awarded benefits, finding that the occupational exposure materially contributed to the disease, but the Appellate Division reversed for insufficient proof of medical causation. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the award, holding that the evidence established the required causal link under the occupational disease provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The court clarified that workplace exposure need only materially contribute to the condition to impose employer liability, and the petitioner's medical testimony and work history satisfied that standard.

labor & employment

This case involved cross complaints for domestic violence filed by a married couple under New Jersey's Domestic Violence Act, including allegations of threats, harassment, and one spouse's secret video and audio surveillance of the other's bedroom. The trial court found domestic violence by the defendant based on harassment and stalking, and the Appellate Division affirmed the stalking finding while rejecting harassment. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed in part, holding that the defendant's due process rights were violated because he received less than 24 hours' notice of the complaint and the judgment was based on conduct not alleged in the complaint. The Court affirmed that the surveillance could qualify as both stalking and harassment, and it remanded for new proceedings that consider the totality of circumstances including any prior incidents.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedurecivil rights

In State v. S.R., the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant convicted of fourth-degree sexual contact, who had completed probation but not yet paid a $60 Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment when Megan's Law took effect in 1994, was required to register as a sex offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2b(2) because the unpaid penalty constituted an "other form of community supervision." The trial court and Appellate Division held that the unpaid assessment kept the defendant under such supervision, requiring registration, but the Supreme Court reversed, vacated the guilty plea to failure to register, and ordered dismissal of the indictment. The Court interpreted "other form of community supervision" to require ongoing critical monitoring by probation or parole authorities aimed at ensuring law-abiding conduct, not merely the collection of fines or assessments after discharge from probation. It reasoned that a broader reading to include unpaid penalties would not advance Megan's Law's protective purpose and could create inequitable results based on a defendant's ability to pay.

criminal law

In State v. Darby, the defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery of a deli based on testimony from accomplice Basim Hobson, who also implicated the defendant in a subsequent robbery eleven days later. The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of the later robbery, including Hobson's testimony and a surveillance videotape, solely to bolster Hobson's credibility, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the other-crime evidence failed the Cofield test for admissibility because it was not relevant, had no probative value, and its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any potential benefit under N.J.R.E. 403. The court reasoned that the evidence improperly suggested the defendant's propensity to commit robberies and that its admission was not harmless error given the reliance on Hobson's testimony, which was subject to credibility challenges due to his plea agreement and prior inconsistent statements. The matter was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a pending murder prosecution in which defendant Carole Long was indicted for killing her friend Tracey Roche. The critical issue was the admissibility of the victim's out-of-court statements recounting phone calls in which the defendant described her own mother's recent fall and death, offered to show the defendant's motive. The Appellate Division had ruled the evidence inadmissible due to risks of prejudice and confusion outweighing its probative value. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements were not hearsay or fell within the state-of-mind and excited-utterance exceptions because they reflected the declarant's then-existing mental state or were made under the stress of a startling event, and their use to prove motive was proper.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former DRPA police officer who was terminated after reporting suspected theft of furniture from an abandoned building to an outside agency, bypassing his chain of command, and who sued under New Jersey's CEPA whistleblower statute as well as common-law wrongful discharge principles. The court held that CEPA does not apply to the bi-state DRPA because the agency's compact does not authorize unilateral imposition of one state's statutory obligations and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania whistleblower laws are not substantially similar. It further held that a common-law retaliatory discharge claim could proceed because the relevant public-policy protections in New Jersey and Pennsylvania are sufficiently similar, and that individual DRPA employees could be held personally liable for their own tortious conduct. The core reasoning centered on the principle that bi-state agencies created by compact are not subject to the laws of either state unless the compact so provides or the laws of both states concur.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned a dispute between two insurance companies over which policy covered a school board's statutory obligation to indemnify a teacher for legal expenses incurred in defending criminal charges of sexual assault and endangering students. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that coverage under the policies is triggered by the acquittal or other favorable disposition of the charges, rather than by the filing of the charges, so that Utica Mutual's policy, in effect at acquittal, applied. The court reasoned that both policies incorporate New Jersey statutes (N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6.1 and related provisions) that require the board to indemnify only upon a favorable outcome, making that the occurrence giving rise to the covered obligation, and that policy ambiguities should be read accordingly. The decision reversed the Appellate Division, which had concluded that the trigger was the filing of charges when damages began to accrue.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned the application of New Jersey's "Three Strikes" law (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1a), which imposes a mandatory life sentence on a defendant convicted of certain offenses who has "on two or more prior and separate occasions" been convicted of enumerated first- or second-degree crimes. The defendant had two prior robbery convictions arising from guilty pleas entered minutes apart in a single proceeding and sentenced in one hearing; the State sought to use those as predicate strikes for a life term following the defendant's later convictions for carjacking and related offenses. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division and held that contemporaneous convictions entered in one continuous proceeding do not qualify as convictions imposed "on two or more prior and separate occasions." The Court reasoned that the statute requires predicate convictions to have been entered in separate proceedings on different dates so that the defendant has had distinct opportunities for rehabilitation between each conviction.

criminal law

This case involved a law firm seeking payment for legal services provided to clients under an oral contingency-fee agreement that was later reduced to writing but deemed unenforceable due to delay in documentation. The firm had helped terminate a low-price land sale contract, defended against specific performance suits, and preserved the property for potential higher-value sales, but the contingency of a completed higher-price sale was never met before the clients' deaths. The trial court and Appellate Division awarded fees on a quantum meruit basis, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the attorney could recover the reasonable value of services rendered even without the contingency occurring, because the clients' estate benefited from the work and the heirs controlled whether the sale contingency was satisfied. The court modified the judgment to apply only against the estate, not the individual heirs, and confirmed the fee amount did not exceed what the written agreement would have allowed based on the property's value.

procedureproperty

This case involves a medical malpractice claim in which a pregnant woman with gestational diabetes alleged that her obstetrician deviated from the standard of care by relying on maternal fetal movement counting instead of using available modern techniques such as ultrasound, electronic fetal monitoring, and biophysical profiles, resulting in the death of her newborn shortly after delivery. The trial court instructed the jury on the medical judgment defense, and the jury found for the defendant physician. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the instruction was inadequate because it failed to explain that the medical judgment defense does not apply if the jury determines the physician deviated from accepted standards by not employing the more modern monitoring methods. The court therefore reversed the Appellate Division's affirmance and remanded for a new trial.

healthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Dangerfield, the defendant was arrested for defiant trespass after police observed him in a public housing complex known for drug activity and found cocaine on his person during a search. The trial court suppressed the evidence for lack of probable cause, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that probable cause was absent because the defendant had a legitimate purpose for being present (visiting his son) and the officers did not follow standard verification procedures before arresting him. The Court also ruled the search incident to arrest invalid under the circumstances, even though police have authority to arrest for minor offenses committed in their presence. It modified the lower court's ruling on arrest powers but affirmed the suppression of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure