Approved Opinions for the Week of June 6, 2017
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…
June 02, 2017 at 11:32 AM
5 minute read
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]
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Funding Bill Advances in NJ Senate, Despite Pushback Over Making Loans Discoverable
5 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250