Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 168 Decisions Released Sept. 6, 1995 STATE COURT CASES CONTRACTS 11-2-6476 Harkins Mechanical Servs. Inc. v. State of N.J., App.Div. (2 pp.) Where contractor was to provide trade employees to perform mechanical and building maintenance work for the state, and sued the state for lost profits one year after the contract’s expiration, judge’s finding that contractor failed to comply with the notice requirements of the New Jersey Contractual Liability Act is amply supported by the evidence, and judgment dismissing the suit is affirmed. DEBTOR/CREDITOR 15-2-6477 William C. Cahill v. Joseph A. Uzzolino, App. Div. (3pp.) Where debtor on a note testified that the parties’ intent was that note should not accrue interest despite the note’s terms and that a 1986 payment satisfied the obligation, and where creditor testified that the note did bear interest, and the parol evidence rule barred debtor’s testimony, judgment in favor of debtor is affirmed, since the trial judge, as the finder of fact, could properly find that the debtor’s story was more credible because the creditor had not demanded payment for five years, and because parol evidence is admissible by the maker of a note in an attempt to establish payment. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 39-11-6478 Kathe Bowe v. Estelle F. Pettit, Workers’ Comp. Ct.(9pp.) Since the petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that her stroke was caused in reasonable medical probability by her work effort or strain, in excess of the wear and tear of daily living, because the medical reports do not identify the starting point of the cerebral hemorrhage, judgment is entered for respondent.39-11-6479 Joseph Drozd v. Harris Corp.; Drozd v. Manville Sales; Drozd v. RCA; and Drozd v. Gen. Electric, Workers’ Comp. Ct. (28pp.) (1) The fact that medical evidence now reveals that petitioner had a manifestation of pulmonary disability due to asbestosis as early as 1988 does not mean that the petitioner was aware at that time of his condition or its relationship to his employment; therefore respondents’ motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction is denied. (2) Based on the evidence in this case, RCA and General Electric are the responsible employers for petitioner’s occupationally related obstructive pulmonary disease, since exposure to pulmonary irritants and asbestos dust during this employment materially contributed to the development of the obstructive and restrictive pulmonary disease, and the manifestation of the disease occurred during this employment. (3)Petitioner, suffering shortness of breath on any exertion, is found to be permanently disabled at 15 percent partial total. (4)Petitioner has met his burden of showing that his asbestos exposure during his RCA employment was a material contributing factor in the development of his asbestosis, and, therefore, RCA is the responsible party for the restrictive pulmonary disease of asbestosis. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-6480 State v. Francis Milton Burnett, App. Div. (4 pp.)While the prosecutor’s statement in his summation that defendant sold drugs in a school zone and the fact that defendant offered” no real evidence to controvert that,” without an immediate curative instruction, came precariously close to providing a basis for reversal as a violation of defendant’s right to remain silent, in light of the fact that there was no objection by defense counsel, the comment, taken in context, does not furnish adequate grounds for reversal.

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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.