X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 191 Decisions Released Oct. 10, 1995 STATE COURT CASES CONSTRUCTION — ENTIRE CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE 43-2-6680 Charles Pillari v. Arthur Gold, App. Div. (2 pp.) Where home builder settled suit against distributor for allegedly defective bricks, builder’s suit against home buyer for payment for those bricks was plainly an aspect of the larger controversy and thus was barred by the entire controversy doctrine. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 25-2-6681 Jeanine Reiter v. Bd. of Review, App. Div. (3 pp.) The record supports the finding that the employee left her job because she was dissatisfied with normal working conditions, namely her raises and the lack of promotional opportunities, and since this does not constitute good cause for leaving work, unemployment compensation benefits were properly denied. NEGLIGENCE — EMPLOYER LIABILITY 31-2-6682 Joan Sirc, General Administratrix, etc., v. James Ryan, et al., App. Div. (8 pp.) Where employee of alcoholic beverage distributor, while intoxicated, caused an automobile accident that killed plaintiff’s decedent, the jury’s verdict exonerating the distributor — finding that the employee was not unfit to drive when he left the distributor’s premises – is affirmed as sufficiently supported by the evidence. TORTS — MALICIOUS PROSECUTION — PUNITIVE DAMAGES 36-2-6683 F. Paula Castoran v. Sgt. William Hurley, et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) Dismissal of malicious prosecution case is affirmed, since, although plaintiff’s arrest was unlawful, the police officer did not act with the requisite malice; having found a lack of malice, the judge’s award of punitive damages against the officer cannot stand and must be reversed. FEDERAL COURT CASES ATTORNEY/CLIENT — CONFLICT OF INTEREST 04-7-6684 Wright, et al. v. Xerox, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) Although a former associate of law firm representing defendants, who had reviewed the defense file, was properly disqualified from the case when she joined the firm representing the plaintiffs, the entire firm need not be disqualified, as they had erected an adequate “Chinese Wall” to screen the associate from the case. CIVIL PROCEDURE — WITNESS PRECLUSION 07-7-6685 Delta Tanning Corp. v. Classic Leather Sales Corp., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) Where plaintiff’s counsel, 42 minutes before the expiration of a frequently-extended discovery deadline, faxed to his adversary a list of 37 potential damages witnesses from three companies, the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing three witnesses — one from each company — to testify and be deposed while precluding the remaining 34. ENVIRONMENT — INSURANCE 17-7-6686 Butler & Smith, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (20 pp.) In view of New Jersey’s application of a “continuous trigger” mechanism to property damage liability and its explicit rejection of the standard pollution exclusion clause for all but intentional discharges of pollutants, plaintiff has established that insurer has a duty to defend it in pollution coverage actions and summary judgment is granted on that issue. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — INJUNCTIONS 53-7-6687 Windsoft, Inc. v. Intercon Systems (1988) Ltd., et al. v. Rami Y. Shatz, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (16 pp.) Preliminary injunction granted, in suit for computer software copyright infringement and trademark violations, where defendants established a need to prevent plaintiff from contacting defendants’ potential customers and from notifying them of potential liability or other facts related to the suit. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — INSURANCE 53-7-6688 Hudson Universal Ltd. v. Aetna Ins. Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (17 pp.) Although insurance agreement creates no duty to indemnify against patent infringement claims, trademark infringement claims are covered by the agreement, and since insurer has not defeated the inference that alleged infringements arose in the course of plaintiff’s advertising, insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify. **** *Editor’s Notes: (1) Because the courts were closed yesterday, Monday, October 9th, in observance of the Columbus Day holiday, no cases were decided and there was no Alert published. (2) The case numbers in the Alert of Friday, October 6th, were in error. Although the topic and court numbers were correct, the actual case numbers, listed as “3670″ through “3679,” should have been designated as “6670″ through “6679.” Please make note of the correct case numbers when ordering. We regret any inconvenience caused by this error.

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.