Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 4 No. 134 – JULY 15, 1996 STATE COURT CASES FAMILY LAW 20-2-9581 Elizabeth Kane v. Donald Kane, App. Div. (18 pp.) Since defendant failed to show sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of a property settlement agreement, the modification order, entered without a plenary hearing, is reversed. HEALTH Now on Counsel Connect 22-2-9582 Counties v. William Waldman, etc., App. Div. (37 pp.) The court cannot compel the state to share with the counties federal funds it has received as compensation for state and county payments to hospitals and institutions involved in the care of the medically indigent. [Approved for publication Jul. 15, 1996] INSURANCE — CANCELLATION NOTICES Now on Counsel Connect 23-1-9583 Jose R. Munoz v. N.J.A.F.I.U.A., et al., Supreme Ct. (31 pp. — includes dissent) The plain language of the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions permits insurers to send requisite notice of cancellation of insurance in advance of the premium due date. [Approved for publication Jul. 15, 1996] LABOR/EMPLOYMENT — L.A.D. — LITIGATION PRIVILEGE Now on Counsel Connect 25-2-9584 Deborah Scorese Peterson v. Wayne Ballard, etc., et al., App. Div. (17 pp.) The common law litigation privilege was not abrogated by the L.A.D., and applies to plaintiff s claim against her employers arising out of two interviews she gave in connection with a co-employee s suit. LAND USE Now on Counsel Connect 26-2-9585 Peter E. Elco v. R.C. Maxwell Co., et al., App. Div. (18 pp.) Law Division correctly reversed use variance for billboard since the property owner did not satisfy its substantial burden of proof on the so-called positive and negative criteria, failing to show that (1) the property indeed has been regulated into inutility by the state DEP and (2) the billboard variance does not substantially impair the existing zoning scheme. [Approved for publication July 15, 1996] PENSIONS — SEVERANCE 56-2-9586 Elizabeth Wethwein v. Engelhard Corp., App. Div. (5 pp.) Although the judge determined that defendant s administrative review procedure for the denial of severance benefits was a sham, he failed to address whether plaintiff had adequate notice of the denial of her claim for severance benefits, and matter must be remanded. PUBLIC RECORDS 52-1-9587 Bd. of Educ. of Newark, etc., et al. v. N.J. Dep’t of the Treasury, etc., et al., Supreme Ct. (19 pp.) The plaintiff is not entitled to information on the amount of claims paid on behalf of its own employees under the Right-to-Know law, however, the information is subject to disclosure under the common law right to inspect public documents. TAXATION Now on Counsel Connect 35-2-9588 Mary Ann Brinkley v. Western World Inc., etc., et al., App. Div. (6 pp.) After a tax sale certificate is invalidated because a taxpayer successfully prosecutes a tax appeal (resulting in an entry of an order that no taxes were due), the certificate holder is due the purchase price plus lawful interest calculated according to the post- judgment rate of interest, not calculated at the 18 percent certificate rate. [Approved for publication Jul. 15, 1996] FEDERAL COURT CASES ATTORNEY/CLIENT — LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 4-7-9589 Dolores Amatuzio, et al. v. Gandalf Sys. Corp. et al., U.S. Dist. Ct (16 pp.) Communications with a corporation s attorney made by, to, or in the presence of a non-attorney employee who later becomes adverse to the corporation are not protected by RPC 4.2, RPC 4.4, or the attorney-client privilege from disclosure by the former employee to his litigation counsel under certain conditions. LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT — DISCRIMINATION 25-7-9590 Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. WWOR- TV Inc., U.S. Dist.Ct. (13 pp.) ADEA plaintiff withstands employer s summary judgment motion by producing enough evidence (demonstrating that candidate hired didn t meet posted qualifications and impeaching evidence of company policy to prefer internal over external candidates) to cast sufficient doubt on employer s proferred reasons for not hiring plaintiff. BANKRUPTCY — AUTOMATIC STAY 42-7-9591 Korea Exch. Bank v. Trackwise Sales Corp., et al., U.S. Dist. Ct. (4 pp.) Automatic stay does not apply to creditor s suit against individual defendants who guarantied bankrupt corporation’s debt. A Daily Reporter of New Jersey Court Decisions

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.