A decade has passed since a rule permitting the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to certify questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court was first considered. “The 1998 Report of the Civil Practice Committee to the Supreme Court,” 151 N.J.L.J. 689, 703. In light of the 10-year anniversary of that in-depth analysis and the coming 10-year anniversary of the provisional adoption of New Jersey Court Rule 2:12A (1999), it is worth examining how the courts have employed this seldom-used, yet valuable resource, during its first decade.
Rule 2:12A enables the New Jersey Supreme Court to render opinions on issues of state law on certification of the issue by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. It was designed with intent to foster greater stability in a system of dual sovereigns, thereby avoiding inconsistent interpretation of state law between state and federal courts. The rule accommodates federal appellate courts that have been called on either to divine or decide state policy in a manner that could affect fundamental principles of federalism. It can also avoid interpretational distortions that might result when federal judges apply federal jurisprudential assumptions to unsettled state law issues. The following thoughts may assist the practitioner who confronts Rule 2:12A.
