Standard of Review
An Appellate Law Blog

Supreme Court to Hear Argument in Three Cases Today

By Andrew Gimigliano on 11/08/2017
Posted In Oral Argument, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of New Jersey is set to hear argument in three cases today.  As detailed by the Clerk’s office:

State v. Dickerson – Is the State required to produce search warrant information (including the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant and supporting investigative reports) prior to a detention hearing held pursuant to the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26?

State v. ShawState v. Bolden – Was the statement uttered by defendant while detained in a police vehicle the result of an unlawful detention; and, under the circumstances presented, must defendant show a protected privacy interest in the tote bag where drug evidence was found?

Spade v. Select Comfort Corp.Wenger v. Bob’s Discount Furniture, LLC –  Is a consumer who receives a contract that does not comply with the Delivery of Household Furniture and Furnishings Regulations (Furniture Delivery Regulations), N.J.A.C. 13:45A-5, but has not suffered any adverse consequences from the noncompliance, an “aggrieved consumer” under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. 56:12-17; and, does a violation of the Furniture Delivery Regulations alone constitute a violation of a clearly established right or responsibility of the seller under the TCCWNA and thus provide a basis for relief under the TCCWNA?

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Today in Asbestos Coverage Gap Case

By Andrew Gimigliano on 10/24/2017
Posted In Asbestos, Choice of Law, Michigan, Oral Argument, Supreme Court

On the Court’s docket today for oral argument is Continental Insurance Co. v. Honeywell International, Inc. As detailed by Law360, the case involves the “appeal of a decision that Honeywell doesn’t have to help cover costs ties to asbestos-related injury suits filed after insurers started excluding asbestos coverage, in a case that could broadly impact how coverage is spread between policyholders and insurers in similar cases.” The Court is also expected to address a choice of law dispute, namely, whether New Jersey or Michigan law applies to insurance policies negotiated and issued in Michigan decades ago.