Supreme Court Final Argument Schedule for Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on Wednesday, Jan. 2, 2013. The issues before the Supreme Court are
outlined in the Appellate Division opinion in each case. If you are planning to
view the Webcast of Supreme Court arguments, you may want to review the opinion
under appeal in order to have a better understanding of the issues before the
Court. The opinions are in Adobe Acrobat Pdf format. To view the argument schedule and corresponding opinions for the Thursday, Jan. 3, 2013
Webcast, click here.
Please note that some of the Appellate Division opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.
(The following statements of issues on appeal are prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. They have been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity not all issues may have been summarized).
A-69-11 State v. Angel Hernandez (068980)
In light of defendant's duress defense to the murder charge, was it plain error that the jury verdict sheet did not state that a finding of duress would result in a manslaughter conviction?
A-41-11 State v. Blaine F. Scoles (069212)
(No Appellate opinion)
Subject to a protective order under Rule 3:13-3, should the defense be permitted to obtain the computer-based information containing the alleged child pornography that defendant is charged with possessing and e-mailing, or may defendant be restricted to reviewing the evidence against him at a State facility?
A-42-11 Farmers Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. N.J. Prop.-Liab. Ins. Guar. Ass'n (068824)
Must the New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association (PLIGA), which stands in the shoes of insolvent insurers, indemnify a solvent insurer for environmental cleanup costs according to the allocation method developed in Owens-Illinois, Inc., v. United Insurance Co., 138 N.J. 437 (1994), or does a 2004 amendment to the PLIGA Act, N.J.S.A. 17:30A-1 to -20, control and require exhaustion of coverage from solvent insurers before PLIGA must contribute?
A-40-11 Frank J. Nostrame v. Natividad Santiago (068651)
May this attorney who was terminated by his client maintain an action against the client's new attorney for tortious interference with contract under the circumstances