In State v. Nazier D. Goldsmith (A-77-20/085636) (DecidedJuly 5, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the information the officers possessed at the time of the stop, which included the defendant’s presence in a “high crime area,” did not amount to specific and particularized suspicion that the defendant
In State v. David L. Smith (A-4-21/085635) (Decided June 28, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a purported violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 based on tinted windows did not justify the Trenton Police Department’s investigatory stop of a motor vehicle. The court further held that, going forward, a
In Haviland v. Lourdes Medical Center of Burlington County, Inc., (A-70-20/085419)(Decided April 12, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that plaintiffs are not required to serve an Affidavit of Merit (AOM) against defendant health care facilities for claims of vicarious liability arising from the negligent conduct of an
In State v. Michael A. Konecny (A-21-20/084880) (Decided April 5, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held a previous uncounseled conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) can’t be used to enhance a sentencing scheme for subsequent DWI convictions. The court further holds that a conviction vacated through post-conviction relief
In Acoli v. New Jersey State Parole Board (A-73-20/083980) (Decided May 10, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted parole to Sundiata Acoli, a former member of the Black Liberation Army who was convicted in the 1973 shooting death of a New Jersey state trooper, Werner Foerster. The court
In State v. O.D.A.-C. (A-78-20/085608) (Decided May 2, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that because a detective repeatedly contradicted and minimized the significance of the Miranda warnings, the State could not shoulder its heavy burden of proving the defendant’s waiver was voluntary. Facts of State v. O.D.A.-C.
In Graphnet, Inc. v. Retarus, Inc. (A-71-20/085529) (Decided February 11, 2022), the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that a new trial on damages was required after the jury received confusing instructions on the purpose of nominal damages by stating in the same instructions that nominal damages compensate a plaintiff
In City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the City of Austin’s sign ordinance, which regulates “off-premises” signs more strictly than “on-premises” signs, was facially content-neutral. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case to the lower court to apply intermediate rather than
