X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 171 Decisions Released Sept. 11, 1995 STATE COURT CASES FAMILY LAW — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 20-2-6495 P.G. v. P.G., App. Div. (11 pp.) Since the record shows that defendant husband had sufficient opportunity to rebut claims of marital abuse, judge’s failure to invite husband to cross-examine the wife was not erroneous, and, since the record amply supports the conclusion that the wife’s story was more credible and that an assault occurred, entry of final restraining order against husband is affirmed. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT 25-2-6496 Mary Ann Carroll v. Bd. of Review, et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) Agency’s ruling that the plaintiff’s appeal was untimely is reversed, since the notice under review as the final determination (beginning the calculation of the appeal time) was not explicit nor sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice that she was required to act promptly in order to preserve her legal rights. 25-3-6497 Pierre F. Matel, et al. v. Koh-I-Noor, Inc., et al., Law Div. (16 ppLaw Against Discrimination, (1) defense motion to dismiss claims against individual defendants is denied, since there is a fact issue whether the individuals acted within the scope of their employment, (2) common law public policy age discrimination claims are precluded by the LAD, (3) employee manual claims are dismissed since the manual is not a contract and the disclaimer provisions defeat the claims, (4) although plaintiffs may claim damages for emotional distress under the LAD, they have not made out a separate tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) the count for breach of implied contract is dismissed, since the employment is at-will and (6) the count for conspiracy to wrongfully discharge is viable. FEDERAL COURT CASES CORRECTIONS 13-7-6498 Cristobal Lugo v. William Fauver, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Inmate’s complaint alleging no more than negligence of prison officials in failing to return his personal property fails to state a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and is dismissed. JURISDICTION 24-7-6499 Barbara Knoth, etc. v. N.J. Protection & Advocacy, Inc., et al., U.SMother’s suit on behalf of her developmentally disabled 23-year-old daughter — alleging that Division of Developmental Disabilities failed to provide an appropriate residential placement and that N.J. Protection & Advocacy failed to assist in prosecuting the Division for its alleged violations of the daughter’s rights — is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, since the federal subsidy laws do not create a private right of action. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — HABEAS CORPUS 14-7-6500 Gareth Jerome Wilson v. John Rafferty, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (10 ppParole Commission’s revocation of parole is denied, since revised regulations give the Commission broad authority to consider evidence of criminal behavior that has been the subject of an acquittal and inmate’s claims of prejudicial reliance on prior regulations are without merit. 14-7-6501 Calvin Saxton v. Willis Morton, Adm’r., etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (22 pp.) Habeas corpus denied where petitioner failed to demonstrate, inter alia, that (1) remarks of prosecutor during summation were prejudicial and/or misleading so as to have violated the right to a fair trial, (2) appellate counsel was deficient, to the petitioner’s prejudice, (3) rebuttal testimony by state’s witness violated his rights and (4) court erred in refusing to pose requested voir dire questions to the jury. 14-7-6502 John M. Prall v. George E. Wilson, Superintendent, et al., U.S. Distcorpus petition dismissed for inmate’s failure to exhaust his state remedies, since he moved for a new trial and immediately filed for a writ without bringing his claims to the Appellate Division or to the state Supreme Court. Editor’s Note: The U.S. District Court has issued an amended opinion in the matter of Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., et al., DDS No. 15-7-6404 (DDS Alert of August 18, 1995). The new 80-page opinion, replacing the prior opinion, is approved for publication. END

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.