X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4, No. 153 – August 9, 1996 STATE COURT CASES CONTRACTS — NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION — CHOICE OF LAW (A copy is in the files) 11-2-9826 Blue Tee Corp. v. S&T Mfg. Inc., et al.; Blue Tee Corp. v. Gersten & Clifford, etc., et al., App. Div. (43 pp.) Analyzing applicable choice-of-law considerations in a suit alleging that defendants made negligent misrepresentations to plaintiff involving an asset purchase agreement, the court disagrees with the trial judge that the attorney who issued an opinion letter incident to the transaction cannot be liable for the representations on which plaintiff relied, and reverses summary judgment in the law firm s favor, however the court affirms the trial judge s granting of summary judgment to the balance of the defendants, since the representations made by the other defendants were not sufficiently related to the transaction plaintiff entered into for purposes of liability under the governing law. NEGLIGENCE — SUPERMARKET PARKING LOTS Now on Counsel Connect 31-2-9827 Mary Clohesy, etc. v. Food Circus Supermarkets Inc., etc., et al., App. Div. (34 pp. — includes dissent) Under the facts of this case, the various incidents that had occurred locally did not cross a threshold to create a duty on the supermarket’s part, as a matter of law, to provide for security in the supermarket s parking lot, and summary judgment was properly granted to the market on plaintiff s claim for the wrongful death of her 79- year old decedent, who was abducted and killed while unloading groceries in the market s parking lot. [Approved for publication Aug. 9, 1996.] WORKERS COMPENSATION Now on Counsel Connect 39-1-9828 Lodean Sheffield v. Schering Plough Corp., et al., Supreme Ct. (38 pp. — includes dissent) Private plan disability and medical benefits paid to employee pursuant to employer s compensation scheme constituted payments of compensation within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, and, therefore, because the employee filed her claim petitions within two years of receiving such payments, the court erred in dismissing her petitions as time- barred. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-9829 State v. Rodney Shinn, App. Div. (4 pp.) The trial judge’s failure to permit defense counsel to elicit the basis for the psychiatric expert s opinion, including testimony of defendant s prior psychiatric history and post-diagnosis treatment, effectively barred the defendant from due process of law and a fair trial, requiring reversal of his conviction. FEDERAL COURT CASES BANKRUPTCY 42-8-9830 In re: Continental Airlines; Nationsbank of Tenn., N.A., etc., et al., Appellants, Third Cir. (38 pp. — includes dissent) Analyzing principles of equitable and prudential mootness, the court concludes that the district court correctly dismissed the trustee/appellants appeals to it as moot based on the conclusions that substantial consummation of the reorganization plan had occurred, investors had relied on the plan, and a reversal of the order confirming the plan would likely put the debtor back into bankruptcy. The court also notes that the plan had been implemented following court approval because the trustees had failed to obtain a stay. [Filed July 31, 1996.] CIVIL PROCEDURE — CIVIL RIGHTS 07-7-9831 Reginald L. Walker v. S.C.O. R. Kearney, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) Because of pro se plaintiff s failure to permit the defendants to depose him at a court-ordered deposition (by invoking his Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to answer questions), and because of his failure to oppose the defendants motion to dismiss plaintiff s civil rights complaint on the grounds of such willful obstruction of discovery, defendants dismissal motion is granted. [Filed July 31, 1996.] CIVIL RIGHTS 46-7-9832 Ruben Benitez v. Hudson County Admin. Bldg., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (7 pp.) In a Section 1983 civil rights case in which plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated by defendants’ failure to allow him to make a telephone call after his arrest, since plaintiff does not allege that either the county or the municipality has the requisite custom or policy of violating Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights of arrestees or inmates, the court dismisses the claims against both the county and the municipality. [Filed July 31, 1996.] EDUCATION — DISABILITIES — EXPUNGEMENT OF RECORDS 16-7-9833 C.M., et al. v. Bd. of Educ. of Union County Regional High School Dist., etc., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (17 pp.) To the extent that the court finds that the neuropsychiatric evaluation performed by one doctor was conducted in violation of the IDEA’s notice requirements, Section 504 and implementing regulations, the report is ordered expunged from the school district s files and any references made to the report are to be redacted, however, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the expungement of school psychologist s evaluation, and its incorporation of non-standardized tests, is denied, due to the existence of fact questions. [Filed Jul. 30, 1996.] LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — TERMINATIONS AND REDUCTIONS IN FORCE 25-8-9834 Catherine A. Marzano v. Computer Science Corp. Inc., et al., Third Cir. (50 pp.) (1) Analyzing the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme in cases in which an employee is terminated allegedly as the result of a reduction in the employer s workforce, the court concludes that the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to produce additional evidence to establish her prima facie case and committed reversible error when it granted defendants summary judgment. (2) Since there was a fact question regarding the existence of an actual reduction in force, the court also erred in holding that plaintiff s claim that defendants violated the Family & Medical Leave Act — by failing to restore her to her position after maternity leave — was barred by the reduction in force exception to that act. (3) Plaintiff s breach-of-contract claim was properly dismissed since the memorandum upon which she relies to support her claim was not an employment manual and did not confer employment benefits. [Filed July 31, 1996.] —END— A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions THIS WEEK IN THE … U.S. District Judge Maryanne Trump Barry overstepped her authority when she tangled with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher over foreign policy issues and tried to curb the statutory powers of his office, a federal appeals court has ruled. The ruling sets the stage for a long administrative appeals procedure over the deportation of former Mexican Deputy Attorney General Mario Ruiz Massieu. See page 3 of this week’s 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.