Many practitioners at the Bar are beginning to believe that our court system, in many respects, is far too active in its decision of various cases and circumstances. A stark example is found in the unreported opinion in Meehan v. Antonellis. That was a case in which there was an opinion issued on Aug. 21, a motion for reconsideration granted, and then an amended opinion issued on Nov. 10.
To call it an amended opinion, however, is taking great liberty with the contents of the two opinions. I suggest that interested practitioners read the two opinions and reach their own judgment on that. Just repeating the same faulty conclusion twice does not make the first opinion correct. However, I believe that I see a parallel in these decisions and a previous set of cases that dealt with a problem in a different context, which resulted in many plaintiffs being deprived of their day in court until the Supreme Court straightened the matter out. In any event, I urge the New Jersey Supreme Court to review the actions of the Appellate Division in Meehan v. Antonellis and to set the law straight.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
