Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 13 Decisions Released Jan. 22, 1996 STATE COURT CASES BANKING 06-1-7616 Linda Pagano v. United Jersey Bank, et al., Supreme Ct. (20 pp.) Because the common law presumption of payment has been applied almost exclusively to mortgages and has never been applied to commercial transactions, there is no sound reason to revive a doctrine after its demise in this state for the purpose of applying it to bank accounts for the first time, and therefore the Appellate Division correctly held that presumption of payment did not apply to demand for payment by depositor’s heir, even though the demand was made more than 20 years after the last recorded transaction in the passbook. [Approved for Publication. Available online in NJ Full-Text Decisions.] CONSTRUCTION 43-1-7617 John Kane v. Hartz Mountain Indus. Inc., et al., Supreme Ct. (5 pp.) The trial court committed reversible error in conditioning defendants’ liability on a finding of OSHA violations rather than general negligence standards, and further erred in failing to provide adequate guidance to the jury regarding the proper interpretation of OSHA regulations and which regulations applied depending on possible alternative factual findings. [Approved for Publication. Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] DEBTOR-CREDITOR — LAND DEVELOPMENT — SETTLEMENTS 15-2-7618 Charles J. Riggs, et al. v. Joseph A. Riggs Jr., et al.; Riggs Family Assocs., et al. v. Charles J. Riggs, et al., App. Div. (9 pp.) Trial court, in granting motion to set aside settlement, did not fully use its power to mold and implement the settlement of this dispute regarding money advanced to buy and develop land, since the parties had agreed on the essential elements of their bargain, and matter is remanded for further consideration. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE — MEGAN’S LAW 14-2-7619 In the Matter of Registrant E.C., etc., App. Div. (4 pp.) Trial court’s approval of prosecutor’s registrant risk-assessment designation is affirmed, and registrant’s contention that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses is without merit, since the judicial review process established for tier classification is a summary proceeding, subject to judicial discretion and not subject to evidentiary rules. FEDERAL COURT CASES CONSTRUCTION — CONTRACTS — RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 43-7-7620 Tony Gomes Constr. Co., Inc. v. J.P. Horan Inc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (15 pp.) On subcontractor’s action against general contractor’ sureties, magistrate judge properly limited subcontractor’s damages under the labor and material bond and recommended that count of complaint under municipal mechanic’s lien be dismissed, since recovery under both would grant subcontractor a double recovery, and subcontractor’s motion for relief from judgment which adopted magistrate judge’s recommendations is denied. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY — VENUE 53-7-7621 American Cyanamid Co., et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (18 pp.) Although magistrate judge correctly found that certain factors weighed heavily against patent infringement action’s venue transfer to Indiana, he erred in granting defendants’ motion to change venue under application of the first-filed rule, since, at the time this action was filed, Indiana had neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over Japanese defendant corporation, and therefore this court orders that the New Jersey action not be transferred, but stayed until the Indiana action has been finalized to avoid duplicate litigation. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — DISCRIMINATION — REMOVAL 25-7-7622 Kenneth L. Treloar v. AT&T/Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (5 pp.) Plaintiff’s motion to remand his employment discrimination case to state court and enjoin defendants from removing same is denied, since defendants have complied in every way with the removal statutes, and plaintiff’s argument that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because he did not comply with Title VII’s time limits is without merit. NEGLIGENCE — INDEMNIFICATION — JURISDICTION 31-7-7623 Jaime Noval v. N.J. Transit Rail Operations Inc. v. Asea Brown Boveri Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (13 pp.) Where railroad employee was injured by defect in trap door on train car where car has been was repaired by third-party defendant ABB under a contract with railroad, (1) because diversity existed when the case was filed, federal court still retains jurisdiction over third-party indemnification claim despite settlement of employee’s claim with employer, which reduces the amount in controversy below $50,000, and (2) although contract between railroad and ABB indemnified railroad for damage resulting from ABB’s rail-car repair, there is a material issue of fact as to whether the trap door defect was a result of ABB’s repair, or occurred subsequently, therefore defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment are denied.

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.