Standard of Review
An Appellate Law Blog

New Jersey Supreme Court Unveils Virtual Museum

By Andrew Gimigliano on 11/21/2017
Posted In Michigan, Supreme Court

The New Jersey Judiciary unveiled an online museum “that chronicles the rich history of the state’s highest court dating to the adoption of the current state constitution in 1947.”  Created by the New Jersey Supreme Court Historical Advisory Board, the New Jersey Supreme Court Virtual Museum includes photographs, speeches, videos, and correspondence from members of the Court.

The museum includes photographs of the Court over the years, including photographs of the Court sitting in the old courtroom in the Statehouse Annex.  Also included are photographs of the old and current Court conference room, as well as photographs of the Hughes Justice Complex and current courtroom while under construction.  The museum also includes a few photographs from the State’s 1947 Constitutional Convention, which adopted the Constitution that “served as the blueprint for the modern Judiciary that exists today.”


Supreme Court of New Jersey Grants Certification in Two Cases

By Andrew Gimigliano on 11/15/2017
Posted In Petition for Certification, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certification in two matters this week.

In the Matter of William R. Hendrickson, Jr. – What is the appropriate standard of appellate review of a final agency decision when the initial decision of the administrative law judge is “deemed adopted” as the final agency decision pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) when the agency lacked a quorum to act?

Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft; Tuwona Little v. Jayne Nishimura – Does N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 preclude a plaintiff from recovering medical expenses above those collectible or paid under an insured’s PIP provision in a standard automobile insurance policy, including medical expenses exceeding any elected PIP option allowed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3(d)?

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.

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Certification in a Photo Array Case

By Andrew Gimigliano on 10/20/2017
Posted In Out-of-Court Identification, Petition for Certification, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today decided to review an unpublished opinion of the Appellate Division: State v. Anthony, decided April 5, 2017. The Court Clerk’s office frames the issue on review: “Is defendant entitled to a new trial based on the police officer’s failure to record verbatim the comments of the witness while identifying defendant from a photographic array?”

After conviction at trial on a number of charges, the most serious being second-degree conspiracy to commit armed robbery, the defendant filed an appeal challenging the out-of-court identification process (which was introduced at trial without objection). According to the Appellate Division opinion, the defendant argued that the victim’s out-of-court identification was inadmissible because the police failed to “immediately record” the victim’s own words related to his statement of confidence when he identified the defendant’s photograph. The defendant also argued that the trial court failed to give the proper instruction on how the jury should consider the failure to record the victim’s actual words.

The panel sided with the State, concluding that the out-of-court identification process was appropriate and in accordance with the law and that the trial court gave a thorough and correct identification charge. The Supreme Court will now weigh in, adding to its witness identification jurisprudence (e.g., State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011); State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (2006)).

Electronic Filing Becomes Mandatory for All Appellate Division Appeals on January 1, 2018

By Andrew Gimigliano on 10/18/2017
Posted In Appellate Division, e-file, eCourts, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ordered mandatory electronic filing of appeals of all types starting January 1, 2018. Attorneys who file paper appeals after that date will have the documents returned and stamped: “Received But Not Filed – Must Be Filed Electronically.” In order to preserve the original received date, returned unfiled appeals must be filed electronically within fifteen days. Attorneys facing pro se litigants must print the e-filed documents from the eCourts-Appellate system and serve them by mail in accordance with applicable court rules.

The emergent protocol, however, remains unchanged.

The Appellate Division continues to offer eCourts training. The training is free and is offered for CLE credit.