Author: Donald Scarinci

New Jersey Supreme Court Upholds Virtual Jury-Selection Process

In State v. Dangcil (A-56-20/085665) (Decided August 16, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey rejected defendant Wildemar A. Dangcil’s challenges to the hybrid jury-selection process implemented by the New Jersey Judiciary in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court unanimously held that the process did not deprive him of

New Jersey Supreme Court to Let Jury Decide If Jersey City Officers Entitled to Immunity

In Estate of Hiram A. Gonzalez v. City of Jersey City (A-19-20/084381) (Decided August 4, 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the immunities from liability provided by the Good Samaritan Act, a statute that immunizes officers from civil or criminal liability for assisting persons intoxicated in a

NJ Supreme Court Addresses When Criminal History Check Can Be Run on Prospective Juror

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

NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Approving or Expanding Charter Schools

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

Tax Collector

NJ Supreme Court Rules Tax Collector and Borough Must Face CRA Suit

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

NJ Supreme Clarifies Failure-to-Accommodate Claims Under LAD

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