• State v. JAC

  Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2012-06-14 · cited 1×

  This case involved the application of New Jersey's Rape Shield Law in a prosecution for sexual assault and child endangerment. The defendant sought to introduce the explicit content of a child victim's online communications with adult men to support his claim that the victim fabricated the abuse allegations to avoid punishment for her own behavior. The trial court allowed some evidence about the communications and family crisis but excluded the actual message content, and the defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed, ruling that the message content constituted protected "sexual conduct" under the statute, had limited additional relevance given other admitted evidence, and its probative value was outweighed by potential prejudice to the victim.

  criminal lawprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (7,452 words)

• US Bank National Ass'n v. Guillaume

  Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2012-02-27 · cited 499×

  In US Bank National Ass'n v. Guillaume, homeowners sought to vacate a default foreclosure judgment under court rules allowing relief for excusable neglect, a void judgment, or exceptional circumstances, claiming violations of the Fair Foreclosure Act because the notice of intention listed a loan servicer rather than the lender, and a TILA defense based on a minor recording fee overcharge. The trial court and Appellate Division denied the motion, finding no excusable neglect and that the defenses were not meritorious, particularly since the borrowers could not repay the loan balance. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief but clarified that the FFA requires the lender's name and address on the notice of intention, that a court may order a cure rather than dismissal, and overruled prior precedent mandating dismissal without prejudice for such violations.

  propertyprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (10,346 words)

• McDade v. Siazon

  Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2011-12-22 · cited 102×

  This case involved plaintiffs who suffered personal injuries after tripping on a pipe owned by a municipal utility authority but initially filed a tort claim notice with the wrong public entity, the local township. The plaintiffs later served an untimely amended notice on the correct entity without first obtaining court permission for a late filing under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act and filed their complaint more than a year after the incident. The trial court denied summary judgment to the defendant by applying the discovery rule to delay the claim's accrual, but the Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. The Court held that the discovery rule does not toll the strict ninety-day notice deadline or one-year period for seeking leave to file late notice under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8 and 59:8-9, and that plaintiffs' failure to follow the statutory late-notice procedure barred their claim. Equitable estoppel was also deemed inapplicable because the defendant had promptly asserted the notice defense.

  proceduretorts & liability

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,886 words)

• State v. Regis

  Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2011-12-14 · cited 59×

  The case concerned the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b), which requires drivers on a multi-lane roadway to stay within a single lane as nearly as practicable and to change lanes only after confirming it is safe. Defendant Reynold Regis was charged after his vehicle repeatedly crossed the fog line onto the shoulder; he argued that the statute creates only one offense, requiring both failure to maintain a lane and an unsafe lane change, and that he could not be convicted without evidence of danger to others. The municipal court and Law Division convicted him, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the statute describes a single offense and applying the rule of lenity. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the statute's two clauses create independent offenses and that the first clause alone—failure to remain in a single lane to the extent practicable—supported the conviction.

  criminal law

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (3,933 words)

Affiliations