Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 165 — August 26, 1996 STATE COURT CASES LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DISCRIMINATION 25-2-9911 Perth Amboy, P.B.A. Local 13 v. City of Perth Amboy, et al., App. Div. (4 pp.) Plaintiff union is the exclusive representative of all non-supervisory patrolmen and detectives in Perth Amboy and thereby has standing to challenge a bilingual written promotional examination on behalf of its members as violative of LAD, constitutional due process and equal protection, and federal Civil Rights Act and need not exhaust state administrative remedies. LAND USE — VARIANCE 26-2-9912 Nicola & Lena Novella v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Scotch Plains, App. Div. (6 pp.) Zoning Board arbitrarily denied the application for variance, subdivision and site plan approval which would merely diminish the square footage of a preexisting nonconforming two-family house in a single-family residential zone since the variance would not involve an intensification of the two-family use. CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE 14-2-9913 State v. James Hill, App. Div. (4 pp.) Twenty-eight-month delay between municipal court DWI charge and trial date was caused mainly by defendant’s inaction in retaining counsel, and in the absence of any prejudice to his case, does not constitute a speedy trial violation under R 3:25-3 or the due process clause. Correction: In yesterday’s Alert, the correct name for the case under DDS No. 14-2-9913 should be State v. Donald Hill. We regret any confusion. FEDERAL COURT CASES ATTORNEY/CLIENT — DISQUALIFICATION 4-7-9914 Carlyle Towers Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Crossland Savings, FSB, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (26 pp.) Where a law firm finds itself representing a subsidiary corporation in one matter while suing the subsidiary’s parent in unrelated litigation as a result of a merger which occurred after the initiation of the lawsuit, and where the law firm promptly withdraws as counsel for one of the affected clients, it is not disqualified from continuing to represent the other client under RPC 1.7. Nor did the firm violate RPC 1.9 because there was no substantial relationship involving disclosure of relevant confidential information between the two matters. [Filed July 1, 1996] BANKRUPTCY 42-7-9915 Broadcort Capital Corp. v. Carole Gerstenbluth, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (6 pp.) Completed chapter 7 proceeding is reopened to allow trustee the opportunity to evaluate and then either pursue or abandon debtors’ federal securities law claim against brokerage house because the then-pending claim was not scheduled as an asset in the bankruptcy proceeding. [Filed Aug. 21, 1996] CIVIL PROCEDURE — CLASS ACTIONS — REMOVAL 7-7-9916 Wayne DeCastro, et al., v. AWACS, Inc., d/b/a Comcast Metrophone, U.S. Dist. Ct. (31 pp.) Class action alleging non-disclosure of certain billing practices for cellular telephone calls is remanded to state court since 1) there is no diversity jurisdiction because defendant has not shown that the claim of each named plaintiff (not some unidentified putative class member) exceeded $50,000, and 2) there is no federal question jurisdiction because the Federal Communications Act does not completely pre- empt all state law allegations involving consumer fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract and unfair billing practices by a long-distance telephone service provider. [Filed Aug. 2, 1996.] [For publication]. CIVIL PROCEDURE — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS 7-7-9917 Cityside Archives, Ltd. v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) Where government contract provided that New Jersey law governed, but was otherwise silent as to any required forum, venue was proper in New Jersey, even though the Bid Request which was incorporated by reference into the contract, further incorporated a New York statute requiring suits against this public defendant to be venued in New York City. [Filed Aug. 14, 1996.] A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE Race-based use of peremptory challenges in civil trials is cause for a mistrial, an appeals court rules. See page 1 of the Aug. 26 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?

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.