Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 149 Decisions Released August 9, 1995 CORPORATIONS 12-2-6342 Irving Schwartz, et al. v. Prestige Printing Co., et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) In a family business dispute–arising out of parents giving daughter and son-in-law a loan to start printing business and receiving stock in the corporation in return–trial judge correctly disregarded corporate form in resolving ownership of company in favor of daughter and son-in-law, since there was sufficient credible evidence that the corporation was set up for tax purposes and otherwise ignored, and that the stock was given as collateral for the loans, not to give parents any ownership. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — POLICE CHIEFS 33-2-6343 George R. Smith v. Twp. of Andover; Richard O. Mattoon, II v. Borough of Peapack and Gladstone, etc., App. Div. (13 pp.) Interpreting N.J.S.A. 40A:14-179, on the setting of police chiefs’ salaries vis-a-vis salaries of next highest officer, the municipalities’ argument is adopted, providing that a chief’s salary “range” must be increased by the same percentage as the increase given to the next highest-ranking officer, but the chief’s actual salary does not have to be increased automatically, as the chiefs argue, since the existing salary still may fall within the permissible “range.” [Approved for publication Aug. 9, 1995.] [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] REAL ESTATE 34-2-6344 Four-H Bldrs. Inc., et al. v. Mt. Laurel Twp. Council, et al., App. Div. (11 pp.) In a case where individual defendants/counterclaimants purchased a home in plaintiff/seller’s development and later claimed that they were induced to buy the home because of misrepresentations to them by seller about the proposed use of nearby reserved lands for retail and professional use, when the intent was to use the land for industrial use, judgment is affirmed in favor of counterclaimants on consumer fraud and misrepresentation claims, and summary judgment also was proper dismissing plaintiff’s defamation and tortious interference with contract claims. FEDERAL COURT CASES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 53-7-6345 Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Talon Paints Products Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (9 pp.) In a case of adjudicated “trade dress infringement,” (1) plaintiff’s attorneys fees application is granted since the law provides for fees in such cases and the information plaintiff submitted to support the fees is sufficient, (2) plaintiff’s application for lost profits is granted, but the court will not accept a more-recent expert’s affidavit on lost profits, since no documentation has been provided to support the affidavit and there is no explanation why the lost-profit calculations differ from those in the expert’s deposition testimony, and (3) because plaintiff has not explained why the defendant’s affirmative defenses could not validly be directed toward the remaining claims, the application to dismiss the affirmative defenses is denied. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — CIVIL SERVICE 25-7-6346 Michael Grabowski, et al. v. Robert Bonner, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (19 pp.) In a case where plaintiffs, DEA investigators, sued defendants, DEA officials and others, for allegedly adverse actions taken against the plaintiffs in the employment context, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted, since the Civil Service Reform Act provides plaintiffs with a comprehensive remedial scheme, which is the sole avenue of recourse through which they may challenge such actions. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY 25-7-6347 Bruce Eden v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Svcs., U.S. Dist. Ct. (13 pp.) With respect to worker’s alleged mental impairments, while the administrative law judge could correctly disregard the testimony of consultant hired for litigation and not for treatment, he was incorrect in disregarding testimony of two other doctors regarding such mental impairment, since they actually treated the worker, and the matter is remanded for further consideration. 25-7-6348 Mauricio W. Layedra v. Hon. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Svcs., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 pp.) although worker is not capable of performing his past machine-operator or assembler work due to upper-arm injuries, since he retains the residual functional capacity to perfom other jobs that exist in significant numbers locally and nationally, his application for social security disability benefits was properly denied. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — HABEAS CORPUS 14-7-6349 Howard Phillips v. Willis Morton, Administrator, etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Prisoner’s habeas corpus petition is denied, because his Fourth Amendment claim of unconstitutional search and seizure had been presented to the state court and has been fully and fairly litigated, and further claims in that regard need not be considered by the federal court. END

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.