X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
125 Years Ago January 1879: In Righter v. Penn. R.R. Co., a case before the Essex County Circuit Court, the driver of a horse-drawn carriage sued over injuries he, his wife and children suffered when a locomotive struck them at a crossing in North Elizabeth. The plaintiffs, represented by Thomas N. McCarter, claimed they could not hear the locomotive’s warning bell due to another train engine blowing off steam nearby. The jury awarded $2,000 to Mr. Righter and $6,000 to Mrs. Righter. 100 Years Ago January 1904: Assemblyman Harry Scovel, a member of the Camden Bar, was fined $50 for contempt of court by Judge Bergen of the local district court. Scovel, angered at an adverse decision, had remarked, “There’s too much Bergenism in this court.” He explained that he did not mean to reflect on the judge, but to no avail. The fine was promptly paid, and in the next breath Scovel was given a judgment of $25 in a case in which he was a plaintiff. 75 Years Ago January 1929: Handing up 211 indictments against 10 men based on morals charges made by young girls in Dover, a Morris County grand jury included a presentment criticizing the girls’ parents for indifference to their daughters’ morals. They urged a 9:30 p.m. curfew law for children under age 14, and restrictions on admitting children to dance halls and theatres, to “curb the spread of such debauchery.” 50 Years Ago January 28, 1954: Building on the precedent set in “The Miracle” case of 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not censor motion pictures for immorality or tendency to promote crime. “The Miracle,” an Italian film about a frail-minded woman raped in a drunken stupor, who believed her pregnancy an immaculate conception, drew Vatican criticism. New York City authorities suspended a theater’s license for showing it, but the high court ruled that sacrilege could not be policed using statutes aimed at obscenity. 25 Years Ago January 25, 1979: New Jersey was shortly to join other states in certifying legal specialties. The first specialty to be certified was trial advocacy, following two and a half years of study. The Law Journal editors thought the program worthy of experimentation but worried that even if it didn’t achieve its goals, it would continue by sheer momentum. As an antidote, they suggested that the Supreme Court attach a sunset provision, so that the program would expire after a set time unless a positive decision were made to continue.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.