Daniel Tumpson, et al. v. James Farina, et al.
(A-13/14-13; 072813)
The City Clerk violated the right of referendum guaranteed by the Faulkner Act and deprived plaintiffs of a substantive right protected by the Civil Rights Act, thus entitling them to attorney’s fees.
James P. Renner v. AT&T (A-71-11; 068744)
Where a Workers’ Compensation claimant fails to demonstrate that cardiovascular injury, disease or death, resulted from a work effort or strain involving
a substantial condition or event, he or she is not
entitled to compensation under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2.
Magic Petroleum Corporation v. Exxon Mobil Corporation
(A-46-12; 069083)
Plaintiff property owners or other responsible parties
may file contribution claims in Superior Court, and a
court may allocate liability before the final
resolution of a site remediation plan by the DEP. The
trial court may assign liability based on evidence
presented at trial, but may not be able to issue a
final damages award. In addition, a party need not
obtain written approval of the remediation plan prior
to filing a claim for contribution.
In the Matter of Civil Commitment of D.Y. (A-42-12;
071464)
The plain language of N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.29(c) and -
27.31(a) requires that there be one of two alternative
forms of representation at SVP commitment hearings:
(1) full representation by counsel, or (2) self-
representation by an individual who is competent to
conduct his or her case, with standby counsel present
throughout the hearing to assist if needed. Standby
counsel may advise the committee, assist the court in
expediting the proceedings, and assume an active role
if his or her client proves unwilling or unable to
participate cooperatively in the hearing.
Matthew J. Barrick, Jr. v. State of New Jersey
(A-8/9-13; 072795)
The Director’s determination that the distance requirement was not material to the RFP was unassailably reasonable and the decision awarding the lease contract to RMB was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Under the circumstances, the Court declines to consider the mootness issue, but warns future unsuccessful bidders that sitting on the right to seek a stay may imperil any opportunity for a merits review.
Martin E. O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport (A-16-12; 070999)
The Court expressly adopts the common interest rule as articulated in LaPorta v. Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders, 340 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001). Applying that rule, the private attorney’s protected attorney work product remained privileged despite its disclosure to the third-party municipal attorney because the materials were shared in a manner calculated to preserve their confidentiality, in anticipation of litigation, and in furtherance of a common purpose. The requestor also failed to articulate a particularized need for the withheld materials as required to obtain privileged materials under the common law right of access
In the Matter of Opinion No. 17-2012 of the Advisory
Committee on Professional Ethics (A-22-13; 072810)
Volunteer Lawyers for Justice’s pro bono bankruptcy program does not present a conflict of interest under
RPC 1.7. With appropriate safeguards, a volunteer attorney can represent a low-income debtor in ano- asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy matter even if the attorney’s firm represents one or more of the debtor’s creditors in unrelated matters.