Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 182 — SEPTEMBER 19, 1996 STATE COURT CASES ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE — MOTOR VEHICLES 01-2-0035 Div. of Motor Vehicles v. Robert Sheyka, App. Div. (4 pp.) Whether or not appellant s letter requesting a hearing on his driver s license suspension was timely, since it fails to set forth any disputed material fact and fails to set forth any legal issues or argument on those issues, the request was properly denied. INSURANCE — PERMISSIVE USE 23-2-0036 U.S.F.&G. Co. v. Rutgers Casualty Ins. Co., et al.; Janis Perry v. HCM Claim Mgmt. Corp., et al.; Janis Perry v. Michael W. Mathis, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Given father s prior permission for his son to use father s car, knowing that son s license had been suspended, and even after son had been drinking, it was reasonable for son to think he had permission to use the car on the night of the accident, when he had been drinking but did not “feel drunk, and judge did not err in finding coverage under father s policy. LANDLORD/TENANT 27-2-0037 Yousef Yousuf, etc. v. T & M Food Corp., App. Div. (3 pp.) Judge s determination that defendant-tenant had defaulted on its rental payments under a hold-over tenancy, justifying a judgment of possession, is well-founded by the facts adduced at trial, and, since the summary dispossess action did not involve complex issues, the judge did not err in denying defendant s motion to transfer the matter to the Law Division. NEGLIGENCE 31-2-0038 John Lewis v. Importers Service Corp., App. Div. (5 pp.) Although not overwhelming, there was sufficient supporting data and factual basis for plaintiff s medical expert opinion — causally relating a subsequent injury to the original accident — to allow its admission, and, further, the jury s award was within permissible range and ought not to be disturbed. FEDERAL COURT CASES EVIDENCE — LAY TESTIMONY — ACCOUNTANTS 19-7-0039 Florida Video Systems, Inc., et al. v. Sony Corp. of America v. Stephen B. Fuchs, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (12 pp.) (1) Although plaintiffs accountants testimony does not qualify as expert testimony, it meets the requirements of first-hand knowledge or observation and helpfulness and is admissible as lay testimony under Fed. R. of Evid. 701, and defendant s motion to exclude the testimony is denied; however, (2) reports compiled in connection with the accountants retention as forensic experts by the plaintiffs unsecured creditors committee are not admissible, since they do not qualify as lay opinion, business records or recorded recollection, and plaintiffs motion to exclude these reports is granted. [Filed Sept. 10, 1996.] EVIDENCE — EXPERT TESTIMONY — ATTORNEY/CLIENT 19-7-0040 Resolution Trust Corp. v. Barnes, McGhee, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (11 pp.) In legal malpractice action alleging that law firm failed to recapture an approximately $3 million dollar refund from the IRS, where plaintiff alleges that individual attorneys who worked on the matter are vicariously liable under principles of partnership law, defendants motion to bar testimony of plaintiff s experts is denied since the experts possess the knowledge and experience necessary to qualify them as experts on the legal and complex tax issues, and their reports would be helpful to the jury in understanding the issues; however, the motion is granted as to those portions of the report expressing impermissible legal conclusions. [Filed Sept. 10, 1996.] IMMIGRATION — JURISDICTION 51-8-0041 Pedro Alejandro Salazar-Haro v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Third Cir. (10 pp.) Since, after this petition for review of a deportation order was filed with the court, Congress enacted a statute providing that such matters would not be subject to review by any court, the court must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction; in the absence of any language setting an effective date for the statute, the court concludes that it became law on the day of enactment and withdrew the court s jurisdiction. [Filed Sept. 13, 1996.] JURISDICTION — JOINDER — PARTNERSHIPS 24-8-0042 HB General Corp., et al. v. Manchester Partners, L.P. v. H.B. Partners, L.P., et al., Third Cir. (38 pp.) Because all of the partners of the small limited partnership were before the district court in this suit, joinder of the partnership entity itself was not required, and the district court erred in dismissing the case, by holding that the partnership was an indispensable party, whose joinder destroyed diversity jurisdiction. [Filed Sept. 13, 1996.] JURISDICTION — VENUE — RACE HORSES 24-8-0043 Casey Exton, etc. v. Our Farm, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (22 pp.) In negligence action against Pennsylvania stable for the death of plaintiff s race horse, (1) specific jurisdiction over stable is absent since the agreement to stable the horse was made in Pennsylvania and the alleged act of negligence took place in Pennsylvania, (2) general jurisdiction is lacking since the occasional racing of defendant s horses at N.J. tracks, and its advertising in magazines which might conceivably generate business from N.J. do not constitute “continuous and substantial” contacts with N.J. necessary to establish such general jurisdiction, however, (3) faced with the choice of dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction or transferring the case, in the interests of justice, the court chooses to transfer the case to Pennsylvania. [Filed Sept. 10, 1996.] Editor’s Note: Two state criminal law cases in yesterday’s Alert mistakenly bore the same DDS number. For future reference, State v. Saunders will be designated as 14-2-0029A and State v. Osborne will be designated as 14-2-0029B. We apologize for any confusion. A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions NEXT WEEK IN THE Prudential Insurance Co. seems on the verge of settling a class action suit that alleges years of abusive practices in the sale of life insurance. But many plaintiffs were promising a fight to the bitter end. See page 1 of the Sept. 23 Law Journal.

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.