Supreme Court Final Argument Schedule for March 31, 2014

The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for oral arguments on March 31, 2014. 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 1, 2014 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opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.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-7-13 Janet Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority and New Jersey State Police (072545)
Did the erroneous jury charge on the proper standard of care under the Tort Claims Act require a retrial on liability only or is a retrial on the jury’s damages award also required?

A-29-13 Robert Lavezzi v. State (072856)
Following the cessation of a criminal investigation by a county prosecutor’s office, is the continued storage and safeguarding of property seized pursuant to a warrant a law enforcement function that requires the Attorney General to defend and indemnify the county for lost or damaged property, or is it an administrative function that does not require such a defense and indemnity?


1 p.m.

A-13/14-13 Daniel Tumpson v. James Farina (072813)
Did the Clerk of the City of Hoboken comply with the requirements of the Optional Municipal Charter Law, known as the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 to -210, in the processing of plaintiffs’ referendum petition; and, if not, did the noncompliance violate the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, permitting an award of attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs?

A-11-13 State v. Bruno Gibson (072257)
Was defendant entitled to a judgment of acquittal on this DWI charge where the municipal court that convicted defendant relied, over defense counsel’s objection, on evidence elicited in a pre-trial suppression hearing?

Privacy Policy | Contact Us | © New Jersey Judiciary