Supreme Court Final Argument Schedule for Monday, Jan. 28, 2013
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on Monday, Jan. 28, 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 Tuesday, Jan. 29, 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opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.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).
10 a.m.
A-127-11/A-14-12 In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing (070426)
Pursuant to the Executive Reorganization Act of 1969, N.J.S.A. 52:14C-1 to -11, may the Governor abolish the Council on Affordable Housing, an independent agency that was created by the Legislature through the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 to -329, and transfer the duties, responsibilities and obligations of that agency to the sole authority of the Commissioner of the Department of Community Affairs?
A-93-11 State v. Bruce D. Sterling (068952)
Should the first trial involving two separate sexual assaults and a separate burglary have been severed and was evidence of that burglary improperly admitted as other-crimes evidence in the second trial for a third, separate sexual assault charge?
1 p.m.
A-65-11 Estate of Frederick Hetmanski v. Rahway Hospital (069229)
In this wrongful death case involving a psychiatric patient who committed suicide while under defendants' care, should the jury have been instructed that defendants owed decedent a special duty of care to prevent him from engaging in self-destructive behavior, and was the jury properly instructed that it could not consider decedent's conduct when determining the issues of liability or causation?