New Jersey Supreme Court
Sign On the Dotted Line!
June 20, 2014
“One of the main purposes of mediation is the expeditious resolution of disputes. Mediation will not always be successful, but it should not spawn more litigation . . . .” So said the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of Willingboro Mall LTD v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, LLC, 35 A.3d 680 (2012),as it considered a mediation which itself became the controversy. Five depositions, a four-day evidentiary hearing, and two appeals later, the high court set forth a new rule in New Jersey requiring...
June 20, 2014
“One of the main purposes of mediation is the expeditious resolution of disputes. Mediation will not always be successful, but it should not spawn more litigation . . . .” So said the New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of Willingboro Mall LTD v. 240/242 Franklin Avenue, LLC, 35 A.3d 680 (2012),as it considered a mediation which itself became the controversy. Five depositions, a four-day evidentiary hearing, and two appeals later, the high court set forth a new rule in New Jersey requiring...
Court Won’t Upset Settlement or Fees In Dentists’ Suit Against Horizon
April 22, 2014
The New Jersey Supreme Court will not disturb a class-action settlement between Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and about 17,000 dentists alleging improper claims processing and violations of state prompt-payment laws. Nor will the court consider a request to enhance counsel fees, which leaves the plaintiffs' law firm, Roseland's Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, about $190,000 short of what it was seeking. The court's April 8 decision, declining to hear appeals in Kirsch v. Horizon,...
April 22, 2014
The New Jersey Supreme Court will not disturb a class-action settlement between Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey and about 17,000 dentists alleging improper claims processing and violations of state prompt-payment laws. Nor will the court consider a request to enhance counsel fees, which leaves the plaintiffs' law firm, Roseland's Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, about $190,000 short of what it was seeking. The court's April 8 decision, declining to hear appeals in Kirsch v. Horizon,...
New Jersey Supreme Court Enforces Oral Settlement Agreement, But Requires Signed Agreements in the Future Before Mediation Ends
September 19, 2013
Parties in a commercial dispute reached an oral agreement in mediation, but the lack of a signed settlement agreement resulted in litigation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately upheld the oral agreement, but established a requirement that future mediated settlements must be written agreements signed before the mediation ends. The Court noted that the plaintiff could have avoided enforcement of the oral agreement simply by relying on the confidentiality of mediation. Instead, the plaintiff engaged...
September 19, 2013
Parties in a commercial dispute reached an oral agreement in mediation, but the lack of a signed settlement agreement resulted in litigation. The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately upheld the oral agreement, but established a requirement that future mediated settlements must be written agreements signed before the mediation ends. The Court noted that the plaintiff could have avoided enforcement of the oral agreement simply by relying on the confidentiality of mediation. Instead, the plaintiff engaged...
GPS Location Data Requires a Warrant
July 27, 2013
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that cell owners can “reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private” and in order to get GPS location data police must get a search warrant. The question in State v. Thomas W. Earls was the “constitutional right to privacy in cell-phone location” and the unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner included the following: Using a cellphone to determine the location of its owner can be far more revealing than acquiring...
July 27, 2013
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that cell owners can “reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private” and in order to get GPS location data police must get a search warrant. The question in State v. Thomas W. Earls was the “constitutional right to privacy in cell-phone location” and the unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Stuart Rabner included the following: Using a cellphone to determine the location of its owner can be far more revealing than acquiring...
