Stewart Glasson Pollock

The case involved a proposed class action by approximately 7,500 purchasers of 1981 Cadillac vehicles with V8-6-4 engines against General Motors, alleging common design defects in the engine and that GM knowingly defrauded consumers by selling the cars. The trial court certified a statewide class of owners, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the certification with modifications, concluding that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues and that a class action was superior to other methods for fair adjudication under the relevant court rules. The court also held that the law firm Karp, P.A. could not serve in the dual roles of class representative and class counsel due to conflicts and required it to elect one role on remand. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Bey, defendant Marko Bey appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from a death sentence imposed after his 1984 conviction for the murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, and robbery of Carol Peniston. Bey argued that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present mitigating evidence at the 1990 penalty-phase retrial, which also allegedly impaired his rights to testify and allocute, and raised additional claims including entitlement to a new guilt-phase trial under State v. Gerald regarding intent. The Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected all claims after an evidentiary hearing, finding no deficient performance or prejudice from counsel's actions and no merit in the other assertions, and affirmed the denial of relief and the death sentence.

criminal law

This case involves a stepfather seeking to adopt two minor children and terminate the parental rights of their biological father, who has a history of alcoholism, mental illness, and inconsistent involvement in their lives. The Family Part terminated the father's rights and approved the adoption, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the father did not pose an imminent danger to the children. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and remanded the matter to the Family Part for reconsideration under a recently amended version of N.J.S.A. 9:3-46, which emphasizes the best interests of the child as the dominant consideration, including whether the parent has affirmatively assumed parental duties such as financial support and maintaining communication.

family law

This case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by New Jersey State Senator John A. Lynch, Jr., against Republican challenger Edward Tiller, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA), and related campaign supporters, arising from negative campaign materials published during the 1991 state senate election. The materials included a newspaper advertisement and mailer accusing Lynch of ties to organized crime, toxic waste violations, corruption, and other scandals, as well as an unattributed flier making similar claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed in part the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court's denial of summary judgment, holding that most statements were non-actionable opinions, protected political rhetoric, or lacked evidence of actual malice required for defamation of a public official; it also found no evidence linking defendants to the flier. The court reversed in part and remanded as to defendants Barry Brendel and his firm for further proceedings.

electionsfree speechtorts & liability

This case concerned whether the doctrine of informed consent requires a physician to discuss medically reasonable alternative treatments with a patient, including those the physician does not recommend, even when the chosen treatment is noninvasive. After an elderly patient fractured her hip, her orthopedic surgeon selected bed-rest treatment over surgery involving hip pinning; the patient later suffered complications including loss of mobility and sued, alleging the physician failed to obtain informed consent by not adequately discussing surgery. The Law Division ruled that informed consent applies only to invasive procedures and excluded related evidence, leading to a defense verdict on malpractice, but the Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that physicians must explain the risks and outcomes of all medically reasonable invasive and noninvasive alternatives to enable patients to make informed choices, particularly when options are mutually exclusive, and that the trial court had improperly barred the plaintiff from presenting her evidence on this issue.

healthcaretorts & liability

The case concerned whether the South Plainfield Board of Adjustment arbitrarily denied use and bulk variances sought by New Brunswick Cellular Telephone Co. to construct a cellular communications monopole in an industrial zone where such structures were not permitted as of right. The Law Division found that the company had satisfied the positive and negative criteria under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d) and ordered approval, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the Law Division judgment, holding that the proposed use served the general welfare because the site was particularly suitable and that the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the zoning plan. The Court applied the balancing test for uses that promote the general welfare, drawing on its prior decision in Smart SMR, and noted the Telecommunications Act of 1996's constraints on local zoning authority over wireless facilities.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure