Supreme Court Final Oral Argument Schedule for Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on Wednesday, Feb. 27, 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, Feb. 26, 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opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.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-89-11 State v. John J. Lawless, Jr. (069703)
Are injured passengers who are family members of the person killed in an automobile accident "victims" for sentencing purposes under aggravating factor two, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1.a.(2), when defendant pled guilty only to aggravated manslaughter and not to charges involving the family members?
A-62-11 Willingboro Mall, Ltd. v. 240/242 Franklin Ave., L.L.C. (069082)
Is an oral settlement agreement reached during non-binding mediation but not reduced to writing until after the mediation concluded enforceable under the circumstances presented?
A-31-11 Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat (068213)
In these circumstances involving a transfer of stock in a family business from father to son, was the standard for summary judgment properly applied to determine that, due to the high burden of proof needed to overcome the presumption that such a transfer is a gift, no rational factfinder could find that this was a conditional transfer instead of a gift?
A-98-11 State v. Antoine Stevens (069313)
Did defendant present a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel entitling him to an evidentiary hearing on his application for post-conviction relief from a conviction of possession with intent to distribute heroin without 500 feet of a public park, where his trial attorney did not investigate and present evidence establishing that the distance from defendant's arrest to the public park exceeded 500 feet?
D-31-12 In the matter of Neil A. Malvone
D-61-12 In the matter of Christopher P. Hummel