23-2-3395 Leggette v. Gov. Employees Insur. Co. (“GEICO”), N.J. Super. App. Div. (Lihotz, P.J.A.D.) (14 pp.) The issue of first impression presented in this matter is whether an out-of-state automobile insurance policy is deemed to provide PIP benefits when the named insured, while a pedestrian, is injured by a New Jersey driver. We conclude medical expenses for injuries suffered while a pedestrian, are not covered by N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4, commonly known as the “Deemer Statute,” which is triggered only when there is a nexus between the outof-state automobile and the accident. (Approved for Publication)

35-2-3398 Rucksapol Jiwungkul v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Espinosa, J.A.D.) (6 pp.) The surviving partner of a domestic partnership, N.J.S.A. 26:8A-2(d) (DPA), filed New Jersey tax returns on behalf of his partner's estate that were consistent with their status as domestic partners. He claimed the spousal exemption allowed for domestic partners under the New Jersey Inheritance Tax, N.J.S.A. 54:34-2(a)(1), and, because no spousal deduction was permitted for domestic partners under the New Jersey Estate Tax, N.J.S.A. 54:38-1 to -16, he did not claim such a deduction. He later filed an amended estate tax return in which he claimed a marital deduction under the Estate Tax. This deduction was authorized to members of a civil union, N.J.S.A. 37:1-32(n); N.J.A.C. 18:26-3A.8(e), a formal relationship plaintiff and his partner had declined to enter, but was not authorized under the DPA. In his appeal from the Tax Court's decision affirming the denial of the marital deduction, plaintiff argues the DPA violates the equal protection guarantee of the New Jersey Constitution, Art. I, Para. 1, and there is no rational basis for the marital deduction to be different under the New Jersey Inheritance Tax Law and the New Jersey Estate Law. We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the cogent and comprehensive written opinion of Judge Patrick DeAlmeida, P.J.T.C., Jiwungkul, as Executor of the Estate of Michael R. Connolly, Jr. v. Director, Division of Taxation, Docket No. 009346-2015. (Approved for Publication)

46-8-3375 Oliver v. Roquet, 3rd Cir. (Krause, J.) (27 pp.) Defendant appealed from the decision of the district court which declined to extend her qualified immunity for her assessment of plaintiff, a civilly-committed sexually violent predator, and recommendation that he not advance to the next phase of his treatment. Plaintiff alleged that defendant improperly considered plaintiff's First Amendment activities—specifically, his legal activities he conducted on his own behalf and on behalf of other program resident. Defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim, asserting a qualified immunity defense. The district court denied the motion, finding that, without discovery, plaintiff would be foreclosed from being able to show there was a question of fact as to whether defendant knowingly violated his free speech rights. The court first held that it had jurisdiction to hear defendant's appeal, noting that the district court's order contained an implicit legal conclusion that plaintiff had adequately pleaded a violation of his clearly established rights. The court further noted that if plaintiff did not so adequately plead, defendant would be entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. The court ruled that plaintiff's complaint did fail to adequately plead a violation of a clearly established right, finding that the complaint failed to allege that plaintiff's legal activity was the basis of defendant's recommendation. Instead, the court found that defendant only considered plaintiff's legal activity only to note that plaintiff was becoming distracted from his treatment and exhibiting manipulative and hostile behavior toward program staff and residents. The court noted that plaintiff himself did not argue that it was impermissible for defendant to base her recommendation on those behaviors—the court held that plaintiff erroneously concluded that defendant's linking of such behavior to his legal activity was sufficient to establish causation. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. (Precedential) [Filed May 24, 2017]