In State v. Carter (A-66-19/083221) and State v. Roman-Rosado (A-67-19/084074) (Decided August 2, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed when police officers can stop motorists with covered license plates. Under the court’s unanimous decision, if a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it can’t
In State v. Edwin Andujar (A-6-20/084167) (Decided July 13, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey first addressed when a criminal history check can be run on a prospective juror. It concluded that while it may occasionally be appropriate to conduct a criminal history check to confirm whether a prospective
The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld Attorney General Gurbir Grewal’s executive order to publish the names of police officers who have been subjected to major discipline… The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently upheld Attorney General Gurbir Grewal’s executive order to publish the names of police officers who
In In re Renewal Application of TEAM Academy Charter School, (A-45-19/083014) (Decided June 22, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the Commissioner of Education’s grant of seven Newark charter school expansion applications. However, the court held that in considering future applications for new or expanded charter schools, the
In Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (A-22/53-19/083156) (Decided June 28, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Borough of Rutherford’s Tax Collector was not entitled to qualified immunity. According to the court, the Tax Collector’s refusal to provide the redemption amount to plaintiffs because the
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy recently signed legislation that establishes procedures for school districts and local governments to award design-build contracts… New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy recently signed legislation that establishes procedures for school districts and local governments to award design-build contracts, under which a single contractor is responsible for
In State v. Zakariyya Ahmad (A-54-19/083736) (Decided June 15, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that because a reasonable 17-year-old in the defendant’s position would have believed he was in custody and not free to leave Miranda warnings were required. The court further held it was harmful error
In Richter v. Oakland Board of Education (A-23-19/083273) (Decided June 8, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that an adverse employment action is not a required element for a failure-to-accommodate claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Facts of Richter v. Oakland Board of Education Plaintiff
