Supreme Court Final Argument Schedule for April 30, 2013
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on April 30, 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 April 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opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.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).
A-133-11 Kern Augustine Conroy & Schoppmann, P.C. v. E. Bruce
May a law firm recover attorneys’ fees for representing itself in a collection action against a former client, and was it error to apply a sixteen percent interest rate on the past due balance as a “commercially reasonable” rate?
A-105-11 State v. Amir Andrews (069594)
When defense counsel was found to have used peremptory challenges to unconstitutionally discriminate against potential jurors, must the trial court discharge the entire jury panel and begin jury selection anew pursuant to State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986)?
A-1-12 State v. Santino J. Micelli (070453)
Where the Appellate Division determined under State v. Herrera, 187 N.J. 493 (2006), that the out-of-court identification resulted from an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure, was it appropriate for that court to exercise original jurisdiction to decide whether the identification was nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances?
A-2-12 Potomac Ins. Co. of Illinois v. Pennsylvania Mfrs.’ Ass’n
Ins. Co. (070756)
Where an insurer with a duty to defend settles a claim with a common insured, does another insurer have a right to seek contribution for its defense costs directly from the settling insurer?
D-66-12/M-793-12 In the matter of Louis M.J. DiLeo (072095)