Remembering Judge Michael Patrick King
All told, Judge King served over 30 years in the New Jersey judiciary, and authored over 400 published opinions.
December 08, 2017 at 04:38 PM
6 minute read
Michael Patrick King
Judge Michael Patrick King passed away on Nov. 25, 2017. A graduate of Fordham University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where he was a member of the Law Review, King practiced law in South Jersey during the 1960s and early '70s. He developed a substantial expertise in insurance and evidence law. In 1972 he was appointed to the Superior Court by Gov. Cahill, and then was elevated to the Appellate Division. We should remember that in our state, Superior Court judges are assigned to the Appellate Division on merit by the chief justice.
All told, Judge King served over 30 years in the New Jersey judiciary, and authored over 400 published opinions. Because appeals are taken as of right to the Appellate Division, that court serves as the “work horse” of the appellate judiciary, placing its stamp on every area of law. Further, because of the New Jersey Supreme Court's limited and discretionary jurisdiction, most Appellate Division decisions are “final.” Judge King was chair of the Municipal Court Committee and a member of the Criminal Practice Committee, and then chair of the Criminal Practice Committee from 1982-1986. One former colleague remembered: “He was really loved by his law clerks and by lawyers as he educated from the bench, but not in a pedantic way. He combined scholarship with a great personality and sense of humor.”
Judge King wrote a number of opinions, not surprisingly, on the law of insurance. However, his entire, wide range of well-written opinions have left an enduring mark on all areas of the law of New Jersey. He took a particular interest in the state constitution. Judge King was rarely reversed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and served very important roles as that court's special master in a major 1998 school-finance decision, together with serving as special master in the Alcotest litigation. One lawyer who practiced before him said: “He was our role model. Everyone down in the South recognized him as the smartest and the brightest. I met him over 50 years ago when he spoke to my law school class and then he taught me in the mandatory five week Skills and Methods course. (some of you remember what that was). He was among the first to support and encourage women in the practice of law. He was considered the best civil trial lawyer in South Jersey.”
Judge King was a mentor to generations of law clerks, who honed their skills of legal writing and analysis under his direction. Another former colleague noted: “We all learned about opinion writing from him. His own opinions were complete in every way. His law clerks, who knew him best, honored the very ground he walked on. And the Supreme Court regarded him so highly that it left it to him to untangle some of the thorniest issues of the day, including those presented in Abbot v. Burke.” Judge King's law clerks have gone on to become judges themselves, as well as professors and effective lawyers. Some of his former clerks shared their interesting reflections in tributes to him upon his retirement from the bench in Volume 35, Number 4, of the Rutgers Law Journal.
Michael Patrick King
Judge Michael Patrick King passed away on Nov. 25, 2017. A graduate of Fordham University and the
All told, Judge King served over 30 years in the New Jersey judiciary, and authored over 400 published opinions. Because appeals are taken as of right to the Appellate Division, that court serves as the “work horse” of the appellate judiciary, placing its stamp on every area of law. Further, because of the New Jersey Supreme Court's limited and discretionary jurisdiction, most Appellate Division decisions are “final.” Judge King was chair of the Municipal Court Committee and a member of the Criminal Practice Committee, and then chair of the Criminal Practice Committee from 1982-1986. One former colleague remembered: “He was really loved by his law clerks and by lawyers as he educated from the bench, but not in a pedantic way. He combined scholarship with a great personality and sense of humor.”
Judge King wrote a number of opinions, not surprisingly, on the law of insurance. However, his entire, wide range of well-written opinions have left an enduring mark on all areas of the law of New Jersey. He took a particular interest in the state constitution. Judge King was rarely reversed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, and served very important roles as that court's special master in a major 1998 school-finance decision, together with serving as special master in the Alcotest litigation. One lawyer who practiced before him said: “He was our role model. Everyone down in the South recognized him as the smartest and the brightest. I met him over 50 years ago when he spoke to my law school class and then he taught me in the mandatory five week Skills and Methods course. (some of you remember what that was). He was among the first to support and encourage women in the practice of law. He was considered the best civil trial lawyer in South Jersey.”
Judge King was a mentor to generations of law clerks, who honed their skills of legal writing and analysis under his direction. Another former colleague noted: “We all learned about opinion writing from him. His own opinions were complete in every way. His law clerks, who knew him best, honored the very ground he walked on. And the Supreme Court regarded him so highly that it left it to him to untangle some of the thorniest issues of the day, including those presented in Abbot v. Burke.” Judge King's law clerks have gone on to become judges themselves, as well as professors and effective lawyers. Some of his former clerks shared their interesting reflections in tributes to him upon his retirement from the bench in Volume 35, Number 4, of the Rutgers Law Journal.
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 AllAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readWhere CFPB Enforcement Stops Short on Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
5 minute read'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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