NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
|
|
- Cathleen Tate
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ALLYN C. SEEL, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, LORENZO LANGFORD, MAYOR, and THE CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Defendants-Respondents. Argued July 10, Decided July 24, 2012 Before Judges Sabatino and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. L YooNieh Ahn argued the cause for appellant (Jacobs & Barbone, P.A., attorneys; Louis M. Barbone, on the brief). Philip A. Magen argued the cause for respondents Lorenzo Langford, Mayor, and the City of Atlantic City (Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy, P.C., attorneys; Philip A. Magen and Grace H. Flanagan, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Allyn C. Seel appeals from an order dated November 5, 2010, granting partial summary judgment in favor of
2 defendants dismissing the second count of his complaint, which alleged that defendants violated his "civil rights as defined and protected by N.J.S.A. 10:6-2" by removing him as Emergency Management Coordinator for Atlantic City. We affirm. I. On January 1, 2007, the Mayor of Atlantic City appointed plaintiff as the municipal Emergency Management Coordinator (EMC) pursuant to N.J.S.A. App. A:9-40.1, which is part of the Civilian Defense Act and Disaster Control Act (the Act). The Act provides that a duly appointed EMC shall serve a three-year term of office. On December 8, 2008, defendant Lorenzo Langford, who began serving as Mayor of Atlantic City in November 2008, removed plaintiff as EMC and appointed him as deputy EMC at a lower salary. Langford then appointed another person as EMC eleven days later. On January 14, 2009, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against Langford and the City of Atlantic City. The first count alleged that by statute, only the New Jersey Governor may remove an EMC during the appointee's term of office, and that such removal must be for "cause." Plaintiff sought an order declaring that his termination by Langford was "null and void" and demanded various forms of relief. The second count asserted 2
3 that plaintiff's 2007 appointment as EMC gave him a "property interest in the position" and that, by removing him from the position, the "[d]efendants did... intentionally and recklessly violate plaintiff's civil rights as defined and protected by N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c)." Plaintiff sought an award of reasonable counsel fees pursuant to N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(f). Plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment as to count one of the complaint. Defendants admitted that plaintiff was appointed as EMC in 2007 and removed by Langford in 2008, but argued that Langford, as the mayor of Atlantic City, was not precluded from replacing an EMC under the statute. Judge Valerie H. Armstrong, in a comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion, concluded that The object of the Civilian Defense Act is coordination and uniformity of response to a disaster. A municipal EMC's statutorily based "right to continue for the full term of his appointment" if the requisite coursework requirement is met, N.J.S.A. App. A:9-40.1, furthers this object by insulating the position from frequent political changes in a municipality. Nothing in the language and scheme of the Civilian Defense Act manifests an intent by the legislature to vest a mayor with removal power over the position. The Faulkner Act does not change this result. A municipality's ability to govern itself is not harmed by denying a mayor such power. The same cannot be said for the State's disaster response mechanism if this [c]ourt were to hold otherwise. 3
4 On August 12, 2009, the judge entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that the "Mayor in a mayor-council form of government has no authority to remove a municipal Emergency Management Coordinator" prior to the expiration of his or her three year term and that such authority "is vested only with the Governor" under the statute. Subsequently, defendants moved for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the second count of the complaint, including a claim for attorneys fees. had been deposed. By this time, both plaintiff and Langford Langford conceded that he could recall no consultations with municipal counsel or his staff about removing plaintiff, but had "always been of [the] opinion" that he had the "ability and the right" to appoint "[his] own" EMC. Langford added that his decision to replace plaintiff had nothing to do with plaintiff's training or competence. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that he had been active in Atlantic City politics and that he had supported candidates that opposed Langford in the past. Plaintiff stated that the city's assistant business administrator told him that Langford simply wanted "his own guy" in the job. While a fair reading of the second count of plaintiff's complaint would indicate that plaintiff was asserting a "substantive due process" right to his employment as the 4
5 Atlantic City EMC, plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment - and, indeed, the "principal issue" identified in his brief on appeal - concerned the claim that the exercise of his "First Amendment free speech rights" caused his removal as EMC for the city. Judge Armstrong, in another cogent and legally sound opinion, rejected the argument, however. Judge Armstrong explained that to establish a right to relief on such a claim, plaintiff would have to demonstrate that his exercise of his constitutionally-protected free speech rights was a "substantial or motivating factor" in an adverse employment action. She concluded: Since [p]laintiff has not demonstrated that the [d]efendants had any knowledge of his campaigning activity or that he was removed as EMC due to that activity, he cannot show that his free speech was the substantial reason or motivation behind his demotion by Mayor Langford. The judge entered an order on November 5, 2010, granting summary judgment dismissing the second count of plaintiff's complaint. The parties thereafter presented the judge with a "final judgment by consent" whereby defendants would pay $6000 in full satisfaction of plaintiff's claims for economic damages on count one of the complaint, and plaintiff's right to appeal the dismissal of the second count would be reserved. Judgment was entered on September 23, 2011, and this appeal followed. 5
6 II. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment dismissing count two because "[a]lthough there is no direct evidence in... Langford's deposition that he removed [p]laintiff... because of his political affiliations, there are reasonable inferences that a jury could draw" from the record to establish that fact. Plaintiff further argues that a reasonable jury could conclude that Langford's actions were "conscience shocking" and were "calculated to damage the reputation and privacy" of plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the latter inference is supported by Langford's involvement in prior litigation (not involving the same issue or plaintiff) over the EMC position and by Langford's failure to consult with legal counsel before removing plaintiff as EMC. We find these arguments to be unpersuasive and we affirm the dismissal of count two of the complaint essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Armstrong in her comprehensive and well-reasoned written opinion issued on November 5, In such circumstances, another written opinion addressing the same arguments is unnecessary. R. 2:11-3(e)(2)(E). We add only the following. 6
7 We review the trial court's award of summary judgment de novo. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998). We apply the same standard employed by the trial court. Bello v. Lyndhurst Bd. of Educ., 344 N.J. Super. 187, 190 (App. Div. 2001). Generally, summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c). See also Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to pursue claims under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA), N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, and that the trial court erred in ruling to the contrary. Specifically, plaintiff contends that (1) [d]efendants clearly violated state laws and both federal and state constitutional standards, and (2) the actions of Langford "shock the conscience." The CRA provides, in pertinent part, that: [a]ny person who has been deprived of any substantive due process or equal protection rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or any substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the 7
8 Constitution or laws of this State... may bring a civil action for damages and for injunctive or other appropriate relief. [N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c).] In a CRA claim, "the court may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs." N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(f). The Legislature adopted the CRA "for the broad purpose of assuring a state law cause of action for violations of state and federal constitutional rights and to fill any gaps in state statutory anti-discrimination protection." Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607, 611 (2008) (citation omitted). The CRA was modeled after 42 U.S.C.A Rezem Family Assocs., LP v. Borough of Millstone, 423 N.J. Super. 103, (App. Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 366 (2011). The CRA has been interpreted analogously with Section See Trafton v. City of Woodbury, 799 F. Supp. 2d 417, 443 (D.N.J. 2011). In Filgueiras v. Newark Public Schools, N.J. Super. (App. Div. 2012)(slip op. at 28-29), another case in which we considered a claim pleaded under the CRA, we recently held: To establish a 1983 claim, "the first task... is to identify the state actor, 'the person acting under color of law,' that has caused the alleged deprivation." Rivkin v. Dover Twp. Rent Leveling Bd., 143 N.J. 352, 363 (citing Monell v. City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 636 (1978)), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 911, 117 S. Ct. 275, 136 L. Ed. 2d 198 (1996). "The second task 8
9 is to identify a 'right, privilege or immunity' secured to the claimant by the Constitution or other federal laws of the United States." Ibid. (quoting 42 U.S.C.A. 1983). Thus, Section 1983 "'is not itself a source of substantive rights,' but merely provides 'a method [for] vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred....'" Ibid. (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 2694 n.3, 61 L. Ed. 2d 433, 442 n.3 (1979)). "The principle of substantive due process, founded in the federal Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1, and our State Constitution, N.J. Const. art. I, 1, protects individuals from the 'arbitrary exercise of the powers of government' and 'governmental power [...] being used for [the] purposes of oppression.'" Felicioni v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 404 N.J. Super. 382, 392 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S. Ct. 662, 665, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662, 668 (1986)), certif. denied, 203 N.J. 440 (2010). "However, the constitutional guarantee 'does not protect individuals from all governmental actions that infringe liberty or injure property in violation of some law.'" Ibid. (quoting Rivkin, supra, 143 N.J. at 366). "[S]ubstantive due process is reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or property rights, abuses that 'shock the conscience or otherwise offend... judicial notions of fairness... [and that are] offensive to human dignity.'" Ibid. (second alteration in original) (quoting Rivkin, supra, 143 N.J. at 366). Accord Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 219 (3d Cir. 2008) ("To establish a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must prove the particular interest at issue is protected by the substantive due process clause and the government's 9
10 deprivation of that protected interest shocks the conscience."). "To establish a cause of action [under the CRA], a plaintiff must allege a specific constitutional violation." Matthews v. N.J. Inst. of Tech., 717 F. Supp. 2d 447, 452 (D.N.J. 2010) (citing N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c)). Here, plaintiff claims that right infringed is his right to free speech under U.S. Const. amend. I and N.J. Const. art. I, 6. 1 To succeed on a free speech claim brought pursuant to Section 1983, plaintiff must establish (1) that he engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment; (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that his protected conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the adverse employment decision. Ferraro v. City of Long Branch, 314 N.J. Super. 268, 280 (App. Div. 1998); Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 161, (3d Cir. 1997); see Bello, supra, 344 N.J. Super. at 194. An employment action is adverse for the purposes of determining unlawful retaliation if it is "sufficient to deter a 1 Although plaintiff obliquely asserts that his constitutional rights of equal protection have also been infringed, that auxiliary claim is of no moment because plaintiff has not shown how such an alleged deprivation rises to a level sufficient to support a cause of action under the CRA. At worst, plaintiff simply has shown that defendants failed to adhere to the specified statutory procedures for the removal of an EMC, a mistake that has already been adjudicated through the disposition of count one and remedied. 10
11 person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights." Suppan v. Dadonna, 203 F.3d 228, 235 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Board of Social Services, 164 F. Supp. 2d 455, 467 (D.N.J. 2001) (noting that "an employment action is considered adverse, for the purposes of determining unlawful retaliation, if it is likely to chill a person of ordinary firmness in the exercise of their First Amendment rights.") (internal quotations omitted). Once plaintiff makes this showing, the municipality may show it would have taken the same action in the absence of protected speech. Stephens v. Kerrigan, 122 F.3d 171, 176 (3d Cir. 1997). As Judge Armstrong recognized, however, before this burden shifting is required, the record must support a "legitimate inference, as opposed to mere speculation" that an adverse employment action was taken because of plaintiff's exercise of his free speech rights. Bello, supra, 344 N.J. Super. at 196. Here, even granting that plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment, he has not adduced sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that he suffered an actionable, adverse employment action and that speech was a motivating factor in defendants' actions. Such an inference cannot legitimately arise merely because plaintiff and 11
12 Langford are not allied politically, particularly where, as here, there is no showing that Langford even knew of plaintiff's political activities. Beyond this, plaintiff has not adduced sufficient facts to support a claim that he suffered an invasion of any protectable interest in his reputation. See John Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, (1995). Moreover, the actions asserted against defendants are not so "conscience shocking" as to require us to determine if plaintiff's status as an employee with a three-year term is an interest protected by substantive due process. See Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 219 (3d Cir. 2008) ("To establish a substantive due process claim, a plaintiff must prove the particular interest at issue is protected by the substantive due process clause and the government's deprivation of that protected interest shocks the conscience."). Nor do we need to consider whether, independent of the asserted constitutional violations, plaintiff's removal as EMC deprived him of a "substantive right[]... secured by the laws of this State," within the meaning of the CRA. There is no indication that such an argument was presented to the trial judge, as plaintiff instead rested his CRA claims essentially upon a theory of constitutional deprivation. See Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, (1973) ("It is a 12
13 well-settled principle that our appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is available 'unless the questions so raised on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest.'" Reynolds Offset Co., Inc. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div. 1959), certif. den. 31 N.J. 554 (1960)). Affirmed. 13
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationArgued October 16, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Messano and Vernoia.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. PAULA GIORDANO, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, HILLSDALE PUBLIC LIBRARY, TOWNSHIP
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STERLING LAUREL REALTY, LLC, individually and derivatively on behalf of LAUREL
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADAM MALKIN, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CAMPUS ASSOCIATES L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BRIAN RABB, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CHILDREN'S PLACE RETAIL STORES, INC., d/b/a
More informationSubmitted March 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and O'Connor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSubmitted January 30, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and Mayer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationArgued September 26, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Hoffman and Mayer.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MESSLER v. COTZ, ESQ. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BONNIE MESSLER, : : Plaintiff, : : Civ. Action No. 14-6043 (FLW) v. : : GEORGE COTZ, ESQ., : OPINION et al., : :
More informationSubmitted October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Ostrer, Leone and Vernoia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION. James M. Burke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Township of Franklin, et al., Defendants-Respondents
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION James M. Burke, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Township of Franklin, et al., Defendants-Respondents A-4257-91-T5 261 N.J. Super. 592 619 A.2d 643 1993 N.J.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. GS PARTNERS, L.L.C., a limited liability company of New Jersey, v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationCase 3:16-cv AET-LHG Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 409 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:16-cv-05378-AET-LHG Document 34 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 409 NOT FOR PUBLICATION REcEIVEo AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, individually and as a Class Representative on behalf of
More informationBefore Judges Espinosa and Suter. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationTimothy Lear v. George Zanic
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-5-2013 Timothy Lear v. George Zanic Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-2417 Follow this
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JOHN WATSON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION December 29,
More informationArgued December 12, Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. Submitted April 19, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Fisher, Espinosa, and Currier.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SOLOMON Z. BALK, DECEASED.
More informationArgued February 28, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Reisner and Sumners.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ADAM SZYFMAN and GRAHAM FEIL, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. CLUB 35, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, APPROVED FOR
More informationBefore Judges Sumners and Moynihan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. HARVEY S. ROSEFF, JOANN SMITH, EUGENIA C. MORAN, MERWYN LEE and NELSON A. DROBNESS,
More informationSubmitted December 6, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Koblitz and Manahan.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE PITNEY BOWES BANK, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
More informationArgued January 18, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Espinosa, Suter, and Guadagno.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JAI SAI RAM, LLC, a limited liability company of the State of New Jersey, and
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROBIN CERDEIRA, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION v. Plaintiff-Appellant, September
More informationBefore Judges Currier and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ELLEN HEINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PATERSON, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. ROBERT MELLET and BETTY EVANS, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID NASH, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, KEN LEWIS, individually and
More informationArgued November 27, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Sabatino, Ostrer and Whipple.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ANGELA STEFFKE, REBECCA METZ, and NANCY RHATIGAN, UNPUBLISHED April 7, 2015 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 317616 Wayne Circuit Court TAYLOR FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFT
More informationJ. A55007/ PA Super 100 BERNARD R. WAGNER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : MARK WAITLEVERTCH and JOHN RICTOR,
2001 PA Super 100 BERNARD R. WAGNER, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : v. : : MARK WAITLEVERTCH and JOHN RICTOR, : : : Appellees : No. 1104 WDA 2000 Appeal from the Judgment Entered
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. BRIAN SULLIVAN, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION March 15,
More informationSubmitted October 25, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Messano, Espinosa and Guadagno.
LYNX ASSET SERVICES, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, MICHELE MINUNNO, MR. MINUNNO, husband of MICHELE MINUNNO; STEVEN MINUNNO; MRS. STEVEN MINUNNO, wife of STEVEN MINUNNO; and Defendants-Appellants, PREMIER
More informationTelephonically argued April 19, 2017 Decided June 12, Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSubmitted March 7, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Espinosa and Suter.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SOPHIA BENSON, Individually and as Next Friend of ISIAH WILLIAMS, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 325319 Wayne Circuit Court AMERISURE INSURANCE,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationStoop NILSSON, formerly known as Kathryn D. Nilson, Plaintiff, v. LUKE-DORF, INC., a domestic nonprofit corporation, Defendant.
Nilsson v. Luke-Dorf, Inc. United States District Court, D. Oregon. February 17, 2011 Slip Copy Stoop NILSSON, formerly known as Kathryn D. Nilson, Plaintiff, v. LUKE-DORF, INC., a domestic nonprofit corporation,
More informationArgued September 20, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Fisher, Ostrer and Leone.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Hoffman and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationDefendants-Respondents. - Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. HETTY ROSENSTEIN, LABOR CO- CHAIRPERSON OF THE STATE HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN DESIGN
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. APOTEX INC. and APOTEX CORPORATION, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, SANOFI-AVENTIS,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. PETRO-LUBRICANT TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., and JOHN WINTERMUTE, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants/
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. WOLVERINE FLAGSHIP FUND TRADING LIMITED, WHITEBOX CONCENTRATED CONVERTIBLE
More informationSubmitted May 17, 2017 Decided June 21, Before Judges Carroll and Farrington.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationBefore Judges Nugent and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. FRANK PAGANO, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP JOINT LAND USE BOARD;
More informationWELLS FARGO BANK, NA dba AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY, v. SANDRA CRESPO, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiff-Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. PER CURIAM Submitted:
More informationSubmitted January 24, 2019 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. STANLEY E. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOROUGH OF CLAYTON, APPROVED
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0069-16T1 A-0070-16T1 A-0071-16T1
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
KIMBERLY PHILLIPS and TIMOTHY PHILLIPS, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiffs-Appellants, JAMES M. WEICHERT, Defendant-Respondent. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
More informationSubmitted January 30, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti and Leone.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationSubmitted April 9, 2018 Decided April 23, 2018 Remanded by Supreme Court November 2, 2018 Resubmitted December 21, 2018 Decided January 15, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. LVNV FUNDING, L.L.C., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION July
More informationArgued September 13, 2018 Decided. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, Docket No. L
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCase 2:15-cv ER Document 152 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA O R D E R
Case 2:15-cv-05799-ER Document 152 Filed 10/16/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANDREA CONSTAND, : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 15-5799 Plaintiff, : : v.
More informationArgued October 12, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Rothstadt and Gooden Brown.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationCase 2:06-cv FSH-PS Document 31 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 206-cv-05754-FSH-PS Document 31 Filed 07/25/2008 Page 1 of 13 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY BRIAN PIETRYLO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 171 Filed: 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:5200
Case: 1:12-cv-08594 Document #: 171 Filed: 09/30/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:5200 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION DAVID JOHNSON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationJacqueline Veverka v. Royal Caribbean Cruises
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-13-2016 Jacqueline Veverka v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. DOUGLAS TRAUTMANN, an infant by his guardian ad litem, DONNA TRAUTMANN and
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1244 UNOVA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACER INCORPORATED and ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, and Defendants, APPLE COMPUTER INC., GATEWAY INC., FUJITSU
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHRISTOPHER HARWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 10, 2006 v No. 263500 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE LC No. 04-433378-CK INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationE&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-1-2016 E&R Enterprise LLC v. City of Rehoboth Beach Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LEDUC INC., and WINDMILL POINTE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED December 23, 2008 v No. 280921 Oakland Circuit Court CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LYON, LC No. 2006-072901-CH
More informationv No Monroe Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PRIME TIME INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTING, INC., UNPUBLISHED October 23, 2018 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 338564 Monroe Circuit Court DEPARTMENT OF
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
RONALD WIERZBOWSKI and SANDRA WIERZBOWSKI, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiffs-Appellants, SAM'S EAST, INC., d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, WAL-MART STORES, INC., and Defendants-Respondents,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DREW FULLER. Argued: May 5, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 14, 2016
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationNo. 102,097 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ANGEL L. MEDINA, Appellant, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 102,097 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ANGEL L. MEDINA, Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DOMINIQUE FORTUNE, by and through her Next Friend, PHYLLIS D. FORTUNE, UNPUBLISHED October 12, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 248306 Wayne Circuit Court CITY OF DETROIT
More informationAPPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT (2000)
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 10 Spring 4-1-2001 APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY 120 S. CT. 2348 (2000) Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EKATERINI THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 20, 2008 v No. 276984 Macomb Circuit Court ELIZABETH SCHNEIDER, LC No. 05-004101-NI Defendant-Appellee. Before:
More informationSubmitted November 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Currier and Geiger.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF ANNELIE MULLEN (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationSubmitted December 21, 2016 Decided. Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the New Jersey State Parole Board.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. WOODLANDS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Plaintiff-Respondent, APPROVED FOR
More informationEileen O'Donnell v. Gale Simon
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2010 Eileen O'Donnell v. Gale Simon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-1241 Follow
More informationArgued May 15, 2018 Decided June 5, Before Judges Yannotti and Carroll.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationRECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. THE GLENS AT POMPTON PLAINS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationArgued September 18, 2018 Decided. Before Judges Yannotti, Rothstadt and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. METRO COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and DANIEL HUGHES, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION. On Motion for Leave to Appeal and Stay.
IN THE MATTER OF SEVEN STATE TROOPERS. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. Argued: January 13, 2010 - Decided:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WALLY BOELKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 22, 2003 v No. 238427 Kent Circuit Court DOUGLAS HOPKINS, 1 LC No. 00-002529-NZ and Defendant, GRATTAN TOWNSHIP
More informationCase 2:17-cv MSG Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-03862-MSG Document 17 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARC WILLIAMS, : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 17-3862
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT VANHELLEMONT and MINDY VANHELLEMONT, UNPUBLISHED September 24, 2009 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 286350 Oakland Circuit Court ROBERT GLEASON, MEREDITH COLBURN,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and RALPH ZUCKER, v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Plaintiffs-Appellants, "CLEANER LAKEWOOD," 1 JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-10, fictitious
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: October 12, 2010 Docket No. 28,618 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, BRIAN BOBBY MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellee.
More information