Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 2, NO. 169 DECISIONS RELEASED SEPTEMBER 28, 1994 CIVIL PROCEDURE – AUTOMOBILES – NEGLIGENCE 07-2-4027 Ethel Casingal v. Renato B. Casingal, App. Div. (4 pp.) Where passenger sued driver for injuries sustained in an auto accident, trial judge erred in not dismissing the complaint, which was filed two days late, since the complaint was prepared and could have been filed timely. EVIDENCE – TORTS 19-2-4028 Miller Indus., Inc. v. Borough of Sayreville, App. Div. (7 pp.) Where company sued borough for property damage caused by a sewer backup, trial court properly dismissed the complaint, since the company refused to get an expert, whose testimony was needed to prove liability. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT – NEGLIGENCE 25-2-4029 Frank McCarthy, et al. v. Barr & Barr, Inc., App. Div. (11 pp.) Where subcontractor’s employee appealed a no-cause judgment entered in a suit against the general contractor for job-related injuries, the matter is remanded for a new trial, since the trial judge’s answer to a question the jury asked during deliberations could have confused and misled the jury. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT – TORTS 25-2-4030 Frances Cheek v. Chelsea Catering Corp., App. Div. (9 pp.) Where employee sued employer for wrongful discharge and fraud, trial judge properly dismissed the complaint, since she was an at-will employee, who did not return to work after a medical leave. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-4031 State v. Gwendolyn Allen, et al., App. Div. (8 pp.) Trial judge properly dismissed the assault and robbery indictments, since (1) the victim had failed to appear on several occasions, and (2) it was unlikely that the state would produce the victim, who was out of state, to testify against the defendants. 14-2-4032 State v. Clarence Bowie, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of theft by purposely receiving stolen property, trial court properly refused to charge the jury with joyriding as a lesser-included offense, since the facts did not support the charge. 14-2-4033 State v. Sherlock Drew, et al., App. Div. (8 pp.) Where trial judge, who issued the search warrant involved in the case, properly suppressed the evidence seized, since the warrant did not contain a specific description of the particular area to be searched. -

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.