X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 169 — August 30, 1996 STATE COURT CASES TORTS — PREMISES LIABILITY 36-2-9939 Laura Parzanese v. Tomas Salazar, et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) Where a business either directs patrons to park across a public road because the existing contiguous parking lots were full or where it is reasonably foreseeable that patrons will park there, the business has a duty to provide safe passage or to warn patrons of the danger to which they are exposing themselves in crossing the road, and that duty arises even where the business does not own the parking area across the street. FEDERAL COURT CASES CIVIL PROCEDURE – REVIEW OF MAGISTRATE’S ORDER 7-7-9940 United States of America v. One (1) 1989 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Pick-Up Truck, U.S. Dist. Ct. (18 pp.). Claimant’s motion to intervene as an additional party in a civil forfeiture proceeding is a dispositive motion because it had the effect of determining with finality claimant’s right to assert ownership, and the magistrate’s order is therefore subject to de novo review by the district court. [Filed Aug. 28, 1996]. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — ERISA 25-7-9941 Florence Daur v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct. (21 pp.) ERISA plan administrator did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying surviving spouse benefits where, before employee’s retirement, administrator had received what appeared to be the surviving spouse’s notarized consent to waive her annuity and where there is no evidence that the administrator had any reason to believe the waiver had been fraudulent. [Filed Aug. 26, 1996]. SECURITIES 50-7-9942 Robert Riggs, et al. v. Bruce G. Schappell, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (27 pp.) Under these facts federal and New Jersey securities law do not support liability by a clearing broker to a retail customer of an introducing broker on the basis of apparent agency. The clearing broker does not owe the retail customer a broad fiduciary duty; nor is there a private right of action under section 17 of the 1934 Act against the clearing broker. [Filed Aug. 26, 1996][For publication]. A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions NEXT WEEK IN THE A New Jersey attorney is asking a judge to order a town to pay the plaintiffs $663,000 in legal bills in a $60,000 case. See page 1 of the Sept. 2 Law Journal

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.