The Confusion Corner: Differing Policies on Virtual Proceedings
The content of the order essentially allows courts to decide for themselves, whether to continue with virtual proceedings, return to in-person appearances or some combination of the two. The order is permissive in nature and chaotic in practice.
March 06, 2023 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
Anyone fortunate enough to have visited downtown Stuart, Florida, probably had the misfortune of passing through what is known as the "Confusion Corner" in the center of town. The round-about, described by one writer as the most confusing intersection a driver could imagine, is where eight different streets, including two state highways, come together. Besides busy vehicular traffic, tracks for regular train traffic run through the same circle. The writer relates telling out-of-town visitors to just "close their eyes and floor it" when negotiating the circle for the first time.
After implementing various orders dealing with the operation of New Jersey courts during the COVID pandemic, the Supreme Court issued its most recent direction on Oct. 27, 2022. The order essentially restored in-person appearances for certain matters previously conducted on virtual platforms established when COVID made in-person appearances impractical and dangerous. The order, however, provided little direction for the municipal courts, essentially allowing them to proceed at their discretion, with virtual, in-person or some hybrid type of proceedings. In turn this has created a "confusion corner" where policies differ from county to county and town to town.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All'Younger and Invigorated Bench': Biden's Legacy in New Jersey Federal Court
5 minute readBattles Won, Others Abandoned: 2024 Brought Big Change to the Judiciary
6 minute readWill 2025 Bring a Change to Lawyers' Mandatory Pro Bono Duties Under 'Madden'?
7 minute readJudges Push for Action to Combat Increasing Threats Against Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Energy Lawyers Field Client Questions as Trump Issues Executive Orders on Industry Funding, Oversight
- 2SEC Revokes Biden-Era Crypto Accounting Guidance
- 3CNN's $16M Settlement With Trump Sets Bad Precedent in Uncertain Times
- 4Regulating Charities: A Small Suggestion
- 5Attorney Emerges as Possible Owner of Historic Miami Courthouse Amid Delays of New Building
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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