Supreme Court Final Argument Schedule for Monday, May 13, 2013
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on May 13, 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 May 14, 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opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.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-120-11 Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Harvey Karan and Phyllis
Did the public construction of a twenty-two-foot high dune to protect against hurricanes and severe storms, for which the municipality condemned an easement on the homeowners’ beachfront property and which partially blocks their ocean view, confer a special benefit on the property beyond the general benefit for which the dune was constructed?
A-11-12 In the Matter of the Commitment of J.B. (070469)
Where defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was institutionally confined under State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975), and the initial trial judge orally provided for a max-out date on the record but did not include such a date in the commitment order, did the Appellate Division err in affirming a subsequent trial judge’s order that provide for a different max-out date?
A-9-12 Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC
In this action involving multiple parties that arises out of a purchase of securitized notes, can plaintiffs be compelled to arbitrate their claims against parties with whom they did not have an agreement to arbitrate on the basis that legal and factual issues and the relationships among the parties are intertwined?
A-110-11 State v. Joseph Diorio (069597)
Were the theft by deception and money laundering charges against the defendant time-barred by the statute of limitations?
A-7-12 State v. William O’Driscoll (070438)
Was defendant “informed” of the consequences of refusing to submit to a breath test as required to sustain a conviction for refusal under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a(a), where the officer read to defendant an outdated version of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission Standard Statement that did not reflect the current, increased penalties for refusal?