X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 213 Decisions Released Nov. 9, 1995 STATE COURT CASES ATTORNEYS 04-1-6976 In the Matter of Arthur Abba Goldberg, An Attorney at Law, Supreme Ct. (18 pp.) An attorney’s guilty plea to mail fraud charges has convincingly demonstrated his participation in activities that adversely reflect on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer, and the Court unanimously recommends disbarment, despite attorney’s attempts to redeem himself through community service. [Approved for Publication. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions] FAMILY LAW 20-2-6977 Mary Jane Zimbardi v. Nicholas James Zimbardi, App. Div. (6 pp.) The judge abused his discretion in ordering husband to make all future child support payments directly to the parties’ college-age son, since there was no showing that wife ever acted contrary to her obligation with respect to the disposition of the support monies. 20-2-6978 Mara L. Riley v. Ray D. Riley, App. Div. (6 pp.) Since the best interests of the children, their significant connections with New Jersey, care, protection, training and personal relationships are all critical factual issues which must be considered before jurisdiction can be determined under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, judge erred in denying wife a plenary hearing and summarily holding that New Jersey had no jurisdiction over custody issue. 20-2-6979 Cornelia Carro, etc. v. Joseph Carro, et al., App. Div. (7 pp.) A judgment of equitable distribution is affirmed, as there was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge, who was confronted with the difficult task of identifying, valuing and allocating marital property seven years after the entry of the divorce judgment. MUNICIPAL LAW 30-2-6980 Lawrence O’Neil, et al. v. Twp. of Neptune, App. Div. (5 pp.) Municipal ordinance — which restricted parking to residents for two blocks in the immediate vicinity of plaintiff’s business — was a valid exercise of the police power vested in the governing body, and is affirmed. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKING — SURETY BONDS 06-7-6981 Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., etc. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (11 pp.) Where bank discovered fraudulent and dishonest acts of two of its officers and did not notify surety bond insurer of the loss for almost a year, insurer’s motion for summary judgment, on the grounds of untimely notice, is denied, since the bond does not state that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery or that coverage under the bond will be forfeited or canceled if notice is untimely, and the insurer has not shown evidence of substantial prejudice from the late notice. EDUCATION — INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 16-7-6982 In re J.M. v. Morris School Dist., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a placement calculated to confer some educational benefit, not necessarily the optimal benefit, and since plaintiff has shown improvements in her local special education school environment, the fact that she has not yet transferred her behavioral improvements to her home life does not mean that she should be changed to a residential — and more restrictive — placement, and judgment is entered for the school district on plaintiff’s challenge to the placement. IMMIGRATION — STOWAWAYS — EXPENSES 51-7-6983 Evergreen Am. Corp. v. James Pomeroy, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) In a case where an ocean carrier challenges the policy of the Immigration and Naturalization Service — requiring a carrier to detain, and be responsible for any attendant expenses of, a stowaway during the pendency of the stowaway’s asylum hearings — the carrier is granted summary judgment, because the policy did not conform to the notice and comment requirements for legislative rules mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, and is therefore void, but the carrier is not granted the reimbursement it seeks for expenses it has incurred complying with the policy, since damages are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 53-7-6984 Alpine Lace Brands Inc. v. Kraft Foods Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (5 pp.) Where defendant moves to dismiss claim for willful patent infringement — on the grounds that the suit was filed on the day the patent was issued, and therefore the defendant could not have known of the patent and willfully infringed it — the motion is denied, since precedent exists holding that willful infringement may be found when the manufacture of the infringing product began before the issuance of the patent, where the infringer is found to have received some kind of warning or possessed actual knowledge of the patent while it was pending, and such issues are factual issues to be resolved at trial. (See related opinion in yesterday’s Alert under DDS No. 53-7-6972.)

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.