X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 174 Decisions Released Sept. 14, 1995 STATE COURT CASES FAMILY LAW — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 20-2-6519 L.Z. v. J.Z., App. Div. (5 pp.) The trial judge’s determination that both husband and wife were guilty of domestic violence is affirmed, since it is supported by substantial credible evidence of the deterioration of the parties’ relationship, as evidenced by escalating physical and violent aspects to their arguments. HEALTH — MEDICAID 22-2-6520 SSI Medical Svcs. Inc. v. State, Dept. of Human Svcs., etc., App. Div. (24 pp.) (1) The Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services’s policy of requiring a higher standard of proof of timely filing of a Medicaid claim than would be required in “general business practice” is rejected, and (2) under the “general business” analysis, the administrative law judge’s factual findings–that the plaintiff timely submitted certain claims to Prudential (the division’s fiscal agent) and that Prudential probably lost them, are compellingly supported by the record, and the division should not be permitted to disallow the valid claim against it by taking advantage of its fiscal agent’s mistakes and inefficiency. [Approved for publication Sept. 14, 1995.] INSURANCE — MEDICAL BENEFITS — DAMAGES 23-2-6521 Louis E. Myers-Schmidt v. Precision Chevrolet, etc., App. Div. (2 pp.) Although employer breached its agreement to provide employee with family health insurance coverage, because the costs of employee’s wife’s complicated childbirth were incurred after he was terminated from employment, the only medical insurance that would have been available to the employee would have been that provided pursuant to COBRA, and, since the premiums the employee would have had to pay to keep such insurance in place exceeded the unreimbursed medical bills, the trial court’s determination that plaintiff suffered no damages is affirmed. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-6522 State v. Roosevelt Johnson, App. Div. (5 pp.) Since the defendant had the right under the “confrontation clause” to cross-examine the state’s chemist at trial, the trial court erred in permitting the state to rely upon the chemist’s laboratory report over defense counsel’s objection without requiring the expert testimony, and the conviction is reversed. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-6-6523 In re: Michael Kaplan and Morris Kaplan, U.S. Bankruptcy Ct. (13 pp.) Bank’s claim should be estimated at zero pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 502(c), because (1) the principal on the loan, which is the debtors’ partnership, is not in default, and is not in any imminent danger of defaulting since there is sufficient cash flow to service all debt, and (2) debtors are not liable under personal guaranties because the loan is not in default, and a prior default was waived by the bank when it renegotiated the loan and entered into a restructuring agreement. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — L.A.D. — REMOVAL AND REMAND 25-7-6524 Bonnie L. Northcraft v. D.H.L. Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (15 pp.) Plaintiff’s motion to remand her gender discrimination case is denied, since, although the defendants’ removal petition was defective in both the failure to specifically allege domicile (rather than residence) of all parties and the failure to allege that diversity of citizenship existed at all relevant times, these oversights are not fatal, and involve merely technical matters which may be cured by amendment despite the lapse of the 30-day removal period, and defendants’ motion to amend is therefore granted. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — HABEAS CORPUS 14-7-6525 Alexander Wooten v. Donald E. Lewis, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (14 pp.) (1) Inmate’s request for appointment of counsel is denied since he did not fairly present this claim to the state courts, and also, since the substantive issues in his petition have been briefed twice below by counsel, there is no reason why the inmate cannot effectively proceed pro se. (2) Inmate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied because, in his state actions, he did not fairly alert the state courts that federal constitutional violations were alleged, and the issues, therefore, cannot be deemed to have been presented to the state courts under the exhaustion of state remedies requirement.

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.