HEATHER HOLST-KNUDSEN f/k/a HEATHER MIKISCH VS. ERIK MIKISCH A-3596-10T1

HEATHER HOLST-KNUDSEN f/k/a HEATHER MIKISCH VS. ERIK

MIKISCH

A-3596-10T1

This appeal from post-divorce orders implicates the

holdings of Gubernat v. Deremer, 140 N.J. 120 (1995), and Ronan

v. Adely, 182 N.J. 103 (2004), that a strong presumption shall

be applied in favor of the choice of the primary caretaker

parent for a child's surname. We express our disagreement with

another panel of this court in Emma v. Evans, ___ N.J. Super.

___, ___, ___ (App. Div. 2012) (slip op. at 2, 7), that the

presumption does not apply to children born to married parents.

We conclude that a distinction based on birth in or out of

wedlock is not supported by the Supreme Court's analysis in

Gubernat and Ronan. We suggest that the Supreme Court might

choose to consider whether the presumption should apply where

the parties have entered into a detailed parenting agreement

that is nonetheless silent on the issue of the child's name.

Parts of our opinion that address other issues are redacted

from the published version. 03-05-12

TRACEE EDMONDSON VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF ELMER, ET AL. A-1719-10T2

TRACEE EDMONDSON VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH

OF ELMER, ET AL.

A-1719-10T2

This appeal involves a challenge to an expansion of a

sending-receiving relationship between two adjoining local

school districts to include all pupils from the sending

district. The receiving district will accommodate all students

residing in the adjoining municipalities by renting one of the

schools it will operate from the sending district. We conclude

that this sending-receiving arrangement does not exceed the

statutory authority granted to the districts' Boards of

Education, N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1; N.J.S.A. 18A:20-2 to -22; N.J.S.A.

18A:38-8 to -24, does not amount to a de facto regionalization

that must be accomplished in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:13-34,

and does not require the Commissioner to disapprove this

sending-receiving arrangement on the ground that the sending

district will become a non-operating district, N.J.S.A. 18A:8-43 03-05-12

to -49.

TELEBRIGHT CORPORATION, INC. VS. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION A-5096-09T2

TELEBRIGHT CORPORATION, INC. VS. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY

DIVISION OF TAXATION

A-5096-09T2

A foreign corporation that regularly and consistently

permits one of its employees to telecommute full-time from her

New Jersey residence is doing business in New Jersey, is subject

to the New Jersey Corporation Business Tax Act, N.J.S.A. 54:10A-

1 to -41, and must file New Jersey Corporation Business Tax

returns. 03-02-12

JIM SCHEIDT VS. DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. A-3459-09T4

JIM SCHEIDT VS. DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

A-3459-09T4

We reject a challenge by a shareholder in a direct action

to the merger of an American defense contractor, DRS

Technologies, Inc. with an Italian defense contractor,

Finmeccanica, SpA. In doing so, we discuss at length Delaware

securities law as it applies to claims of breach of fiduciary

duties of due care, loyalty, good faith, and candor. 02-27-12

KAREN BROWN, ESQ. VS. CITY OF PATERSON, ET AL. A-0031-11T3

KAREN BROWN, ESQ. VS. CITY OF PATERSON, ET AL.

A-0031-11T3

This appeal concerns N.J.S.A. 2B:12-5, which authorizes a

municipality, with the Assignment Judge's approval, to appoint

either an additional permanent municipal judge or a temporary

municipal judge. A permanent judge has a three-year term of

office, while a temporary judge's term is limited to one year.

We held that a municipality may not obtain the Assignment

Judge's permission to appoint an additional permanent judge and

then appoint a temporary judge instead, without obtaining the

Assignment Judge's approval for that appointment. On the record

presented, it was not an abuse of the trial judge's discretion

to preliminarily enjoin the municipality from terminating the

employment of plaintiff, a municipal judge, pending further

proceedings in the case. 02-17-12

NEW JERSEY DENTAL ASSOCIATION VS. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. A-2916-10T2

NEW JERSEY DENTAL ASSOCIATION VS. METROPOLITAN LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

A-2916-10T2

The New Jersey Dental Association contends that by allowing

the bundling of an otherwise lawful dental plan, based on a

selective contracting arrangement, with an otherwise lawful

ancillary program for services not covered by the dental plan,

the Commissioner of the Department of Banking and Insurance has

exceeded the authority delegated in the selective contracting

law, N.J.S.A. 17B:27A-54. We reject that contention and uphold

the validity of the Department's regulation, N.J.A.C. 11:22-

5.10.

In addressing the Department's and the defendant insurers'

objections to our reaching the merits of the issue presented, we

also discuss the relationship between private causes of action,

declaratory actions implicating an agency's primary authority,

and jurisdiction to review agency action. 02-15-12

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION XIANGJING ZAHN TO CHANGE THE NAME OF HONGHONG ZHAN, A MINOR, TO MICHELLE HONGHONG ZHAN A-6113-10T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION XIANGJING ZAHN TO

CHANGE THE NAME OF HONGHONG ZHAN, A MINOR, TO MICHELLE

HONGHONG ZHAN

A-6113-10T1

A permanent resident alien may obtain a legal change of

name pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:52-1 to -4. We reverse the trial

court's order, which dismissed a name change application on the

basis that relief under the statute was limited to United States

citizens. 02-14-12

IN RE: PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2010-17 OF THE CITY OF MARGATE CITY, ATLANTIC COUNTY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: PETITION FOR REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE

2010-17 OF THE CITY OF MARGATE CITY, ATLANTIC COUNTY,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN STEVEN WOERNER, ET AL. VS. THOMAS D. HILTNER, ET

AL.

A-2475-10T1

The section of the Home Rule Act that establishes the right

to a public referendum regarding any ordinance authorizing the

incurring of an indebtedness applies to a municipality organized

under the Walsh Act. 02-14-12

Vandella Davis, as Guardian Ad Litem for Roland Davis v. Devereux Foundation (066800; A-54/55-10)

Vandella Davis, as Guardian Ad Litem for Roland Davis

v. Devereux Foundation (066800; A-54/55-10)

The Court reaffirms the duty of due care imposed upon

caregivers with in loco parentis responsibilities to

persons with developmental disabilities. However,

applying the analysis set forth and developed by prior

Court opinions, the parties’ relationship, the nature

of the risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise

care, and public policy, do not justify imposing on

such caregivers a “non-delegable duty” to protect

residents from harm caused by employees’ intentional

acts. Also, no rational factfinder could find that

McClain’s criminal assault on Davis was conducted

within the scope of her employment. 2-29-12

Ronald Durando and Gustave Dotoli v. The Nutley Sun and North Jersey Media Group, Inc. (065978; A-105-09)

Ronald Durando and Gustave Dotoli v. The Nutley Sun

and North Jersey Media Group, Inc. (065978; A-105-09)

Although this case unquestionably involves sloppy

journalism, the careless acts of a harried editor, the

summary-judgment record before the Court cannot

support a finding by clear and convincing evidence

that the editor knowingly or in reckless disregard of

the truth published the false front-page teaser. 2-28-12

Kamie S. Kendall v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., et al. (066802; A-73-10)

Kamie S. Kendall v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., et al.

(066802; A-73-10)

Because a reasonable person in plaintiff Kamie

Kendall’s situation would not have known by December

2003 of the relationship between Accutane and

ulcerative colitis, her December 2005 lawsuit against

the defendant developers and marketers of the drug was

timely. 2-27-12

US Bank National Association, etc. v. Maryse Guillaume and Emilio Guillaume, et al. (068176; A-11-11)

US Bank National Association, etc. v. Maryse Guillaume

and Emilio Guillaume, et al. (068176; A-11-11)

The Fair Foreclosure Act requires that foreclosure

plaintiffs list on the notice of intention to

foreclose the name and address of the actual lender,

in addition to contact information for any loan

servicer involved in the mortgage. Because the trial

court in this matter appropriately ordered the lender

to reissue a complaint notice of intention and because

the borrowers’ other arguments do not warrant a grant

of relief, the Court affirms the denial of their

motion to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure. 2-27-12

Apartment injuries.mov

What to do if Hit by a Car While Riding a Motorcycle Motorcycle accidents