Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A female custodian employed by a public university filed a Title IX complaint alleging physical assault and a pattern of sexual harassment by a male co-worker, both of whom were members of the same union. The university, which receives federal funding, initiated a Title IX grievance process compliant with 2020 federal Title IX Regulations. After an investigation and hearing in which both parties participated, university decision-makers found the accused violated university policy and determined there was just cause for his termination. The accused’s appeal within the Title IX process was unsuccessful, and he was terminated.The union representing the accused employee filed a grievance under its 2019 collective negotiation agreement (CNA) with the university, seeking arbitration to determine whether the termination was for just cause. The university denied the grievance, arguing that the federal Title IX Regulations preempted the CNA’s grievance procedure. The union sought arbitration through the New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), which denied the university’s request to restrain arbitration and held, applying state preemption law, that the Title IX Regulations did not preempt arbitration. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed, finding no conflict precluding the union’s grievance procedure.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the CNA’s grievance procedure is preempted by the 2020 federal Title IX Regulations because those regulations require that any grievance or appeal process must apply equally to both complainant and respondent. The CNA’s arbitration process excluded the alleged victim from participation, granting rights only to the accused. The Court concluded that this inequality creates a direct conflict with federal law, which therefore preempts the CNA’s arbitration provision in this context. The decision is limited to this particular CNA and does not preempt all union grievance procedures. View "In the Matter of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey v. AFSCME Local 888" on Justia Law

In 2005, an individual was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and placed on Parole Supervision for Life (PSL) in New Jersey. The State Parole Board imposed two special conditions: a ban on accessing social media and a ban on viewing or possessing pornography. In 2018, the individual was arrested on a parole warrant for allegedly violating both conditions. After a hearing, the Parole Board found violations, revoked PSL, and ordered twelve months of incarceration. The individual challenged the constitutionality of the conditions, arguing they violated First Amendment rights. While an appeal was pending, the Parole Board vacated the revocation in February 2020 and later discharged the conditions. On June 1, 2020, the Board issued a decision stating there was no clear and convincing evidence of violations.The complainant and spouse then filed suit under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (CRA) and the Tort Claims Act (TCA) against the State and others, alleging substantive due process violations, gross negligence, deliberate indifference, and false arrest/imprisonment. The trial court dismissed all claims as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations began to run at various points before June 2020. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the claims accrued earlier and that even under the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey, the relevant accrual event was the Board's February 2020 vacatur of the revocation.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the favorable-termination rule from Heck v. Humphrey applies to claims under the CRA and the TCA, meaning that civil rights claims that necessarily challenge the validity of a criminal or quasi-criminal proceeding do not accrue until that proceeding is terminated in the plaintiff’s favor. The Court determined that substantive due process and related claims accrued on June 1, 2020, making them timely, but that any false arrest/imprisonment claim accrued earlier and was time-barred. The Court reversed the dismissal of the first three counts and affirmed the dismissal of the false arrest/imprisonment claim. View "C.A.L. v. State of New Jersey" on Justia Law

The case concerns an incident in Van Saun County Park, a 130-acre public space in Paramus, New Jersey, owned and operated by Bergen County. In April 2021, Andris Arias was rollerblading on a paved pedestrian path in the park when she fell into a pothole, sustaining significant injuries. Arias filed a negligence suit against Bergen County, alleging failure to maintain the path or warn visitors of hazards.The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, granted Bergen County’s motion to dismiss, holding that the Landowner Liability Act (LLA), N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-2 to -10, immunized the County from liability for injuries arising from recreational activities on its premises. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, finding that Van Saun Park's “dominant character” as open land for sport and recreation qualified it for protection under the LLA. The appellate court relied on precedent that the LLA’s immunity applies to properties with the dominant character of open recreational space, rather than to residential or suburban backyards.On appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed whether Bergen County was entitled to immunity under the LLA for the rollerblading accident. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, holding that Van Saun Park is precisely the type of premises the Legislature intended to protect through the LLA. The Court clarified that the LLA should be liberally construed to encourage landowners to open their properties for recreational use without fear of liability, and that the “dominant character of the land” test is appropriate for determining immunity. Thus, Bergen County is immunized from tort liability for the accident under the LLA. View "Arias v. County of Bergen" on Justia Law

The Borough of Sea Bright previously operated as a non-operating school district, sending its kindergarten through eighth-grade students to the Oceanport School District and its high school students to Shore Regional High School District. In 2009, following legislative changes, Sea Bright merged with Oceanport for K-8 education, while continuing its relationship with Shore Regional for grades 9-12. In 2022, Sea Bright sought to withdraw from both Oceanport and Shore Regional in order to join with the Boroughs of Highlands and Atlantic Highlands and Henry Hudson Regional High School to form an all-purpose regional school district serving all grade levels. Sea Bright adopted a resolution supporting this proposal.After Sea Bright and other municipalities filed a joint petition for regionalization with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Oceanport and Shore Regional challenged Sea Bright’s authority to seek withdrawal under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11(a). The Commissioner of Education determined that Sea Bright was empowered by statute to pursue withdrawal from the two districts. Oceanport and Shore Regional appealed, arguing that merged districts were not included in the statutory authorization for withdrawal. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, holding that Sea Bright was eligible to seek withdrawal and that statutory terms such as “consolidated” and “merged” were not intended to be distinct for this purpose.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment. The Court held that, based on the plain language of the relevant statutes and the legislative intent to promote regionalization, a municipality in Sea Bright’s position is a governing body authorized to pursue withdrawal from a school district to form or enlarge a regional school district under N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11(a). The Court did not address whether Sea Bright satisfied other statutory criteria, leaving that determination to the Commissioner of Education if Sea Bright files a petition. View "In the Matter of the Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a PK-12 All-Purpose Regional School District" on Justia Law

In November 2018, police and firefighters responded to a fire at the defendant’s home. About forty minutes after their arrival, while the main section of the house remained ablaze, officers seized a digital video recorder (DVR) from the garage attached to the house without first obtaining a warrant. The State alleged that the DVR contained footage relevant to a broader investigation, including suspicion of arson and multiple related homicides. The defendant moved before trial to suppress the DVR, arguing that its warrantless seizure was unconstitutional.The Superior Court, Law Division held a multi-day suppression hearing, heard testimony from several first responders, and reviewed video and photographic evidence. The trial judge found the officers credible but determined that exigent circumstances did not justify the warrantless seizure because the garage fire had been extinguished for about thirty minutes and the garage was physically distant from the still-burning portion of the house. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that the officers had time to secure a warrant and that the facts did not support an objectively reasonable belief that immediate seizure was necessary.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and, applying a de novo standard to the legal conclusions, found that under the totality of the circumstances, the police acted reasonably and that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure of the DVR. The Court explained that no bright-line rule governs exigency, and its determination requires a fact-sensitive analysis. Here, the seriousness of the crime, the urgency of the situation, the difficulty of obtaining a warrant at that hour, and the risk of evidence destruction supported the officers’ actions. The Court reversed the suppression order and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Caneiro" on Justia Law

Extech Building Materials, Inc., a supplier, provided building materials to E&N Construction, Inc. under a two-page “Credit Application and Agreement.” Two E&N representatives, including Joaquim G. Ferreira, signed the agreement. Above the signature lines, a paragraph stated that the signers “personally guarantee unconditionally, at all times . . . the payment of indebtedness . . . of the within named firm.” However, the signature lines used the pre-printed words “No Title,” and neither signer specified whether they signed as representatives, individually, or both. E&N later defaulted on payment, and Extech sued, seeking to hold Ferreira personally liable as a guarantor.The Superior Court, Law Division, denied Extech’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Ferreira, finding the agreement did not make it clear that the signers were responsible as guarantors for E&N’s debt. Extech appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, holding that genuine issues of fact about the parties’ intentions precluded summary judgment for Ferreira and Roney. The trial court’s denial of summary judgment to Extech was affirmed. Ferreira then petitioned for certification, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a valid personal guaranty of a company’s indebtedness requires the signer to unambiguously manifest their intent to be personally bound. It is possible for a single signature to bind both a company and the individual as guarantor, but only if the agreement clearly expresses that intent. In this case, Ferreira did not unambiguously manifest an intent to be personally bound as guarantor. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment in Ferreira’s favor, as well as dismissal of the complaint against Roney. View "Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. E&N Construction, Inc." on Justia Law

In two separate incidents, young children under the care of their fathers began exhibiting symptoms commonly known as the “triad” associated with Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma (SBS/AHT): subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and encephalopathy. In each case, a child abuse pediatrician diagnosed the children with SBS/AHT. Both fathers were subsequently charged with aggravated assault and child endangerment based on these findings. The State intended to call the diagnosing physician as an expert witness to testify that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the only plausible explanation for the children’s symptoms was shaking by the caregiver. The defense in both cases moved to exclude this testimony, challenging the scientific reliability of the SBS/AHT theory, specifically the claim that shaking alone, without any impact, can cause the observed injuries.In the Superior Court, following a Frye hearing in one case, the trial judge excluded the SBS/AHT expert testimony, concluding that the scientific basis for the diagnosis was not sufficiently reliable under the Frye standard, particularly given the lack of acceptance in the biomechanical community. The other trial court adopted this determination for the related case. The Appellate Division consolidated the appeals and affirmed both trial courts, holding that SBS/AHT testimony based solely on shaking without impact did not meet the required standard of reliability for expert evidence.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the cases. It held that the State failed to establish that expert testimony diagnosing SBS/AHT based on shaking without impact is generally accepted in both the medical/pediatric and biomechanical engineering communities, as required under Frye. The Court affirmed the exclusion of the expert testimony and upheld the dismissal of the indictment in one case due to insufficient causation evidence without the barred testimony. View "State v. Nieves" on Justia Law

In this case, Denise Wilkerson won the Democratic primary for a council seat in Roselle, New Jersey, by a narrow margin of three votes over Cynthia Johnson. Johnson requested a recount and a recheck, which ultimately reduced Wilkerson’s margin to two votes. Johnson then filed an amended petition contesting the election, arguing that three voters had been improperly denied the right to vote. The trial court initially ordered a new election but, after reconsideration prompted by the Attorney General, removed the requirement for a new election and directed that the Democratic County Committee select the nominee pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:13-20.Wilkerson appealed the trial court’s September 12 order to the Appellate Division, seeking either a special primary and general election after Election Day or, alternatively, placement of both Democratic candidates on the general election ballot. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order, upholding the use of the statutory process that allowed the county committee to select the nominee. Wilkerson then filed an emergent application with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, reiterating her requests for extraordinary remedies.The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that neither of Wilkerson’s proposed remedies—holding a special primary and general election after Election Day or placing both Democratic candidates on the general election ballot—finds support in the statutory scheme. The Court determined that the relevant statutes, N.J.S.A. 19:13-18 and N.J.S.A. 19:13-20, govern the situation, and that the county committee’s selection of the nominee was proper, even though the statutory deadline was relaxed due to litigation delays. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Johnson v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

In 1973, Fred Krug committed murder and other violent crimes while on parole, leading to his conviction and a life sentence plus additional consecutive terms. Over the years, Krug accumulated numerous disciplinary infractions in prison but had maintained a largely clean record since 2003, aside from a single incident in 2017. He was denied parole in 1994, 1995, 2012, and 2016. In 2022, at age 75, Krug became eligible for parole again. A two-member panel of the New Jersey State Parole Board denied his application in 2023, citing both old and new information, including his criminal history and institutional behavior, and set his next eligibility for thirty-six months later.Krug appealed the denial to the full Parole Board, arguing that the panel violated the 1979 Parole Act by failing to present new evidence since his last denial, as that Act required only “new information” to be considered at subsequent hearings. The full Board affirmed the denial, explaining that a 1997 amendment had removed the new-information limitation, allowing consideration of the entire record at each hearing. Krug then appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, which upheld the Board’s decision, relying on its earlier ruling in Trantino v. State Parole Board (Trantino V) that the 1997 amendment was a procedural change and did not violate ex post facto protections.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that constitutional ex post facto prohibitions bar only punishment beyond what was contemplated at the time the crime was committed. Since the law in effect when Krug committed his offenses (the Parole Act of 1948) permitted the Board to consider all available information, the retroactive application of the 1997 amendment did not increase his punishment. The Court therefore rejected Krug’s ex post facto challenge and affirmed the lower court’s judgment as modified. View "Krug v. New Jersey State Parole Board" on Justia Law

In January 2020, Salve Chipola attended a high school basketball game where Sean Flannery made statements to a school official accusing Chipola of being a drug dealer and providing drugs and alcohol to students. As a result, Chipola was later banned from school grounds and questioned by a police officer about these allegations, which he denied. Flannery admitted to making the statements. Nearly two years after the incident, Chipola filed a lawsuit against Flannery for false light invasion of privacy, alleging that the false statements harmed his reputation and caused emotional distress.The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, granted Flannery’s motion to dismiss, finding that Chipola’s claim was time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, as established in Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, reasoning that false light claims are essentially akin to defamation and thus subject to the same one-year limitations period. The court relied on prior case law, including Rumbauskas v. Cantor, which recognized the similarities between false light and defamation claims.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to resolve whether the statute of limitations for false light invasion of privacy should be one year, as for defamation, or two years, as for personal injury. The Court held that the one-year statute of limitations for defamation claims also applies to false light claims. The Court reasoned that the conduct and injuries underlying both torts are closely aligned, and applying a longer limitations period to false light would undermine legislative intent and free speech protections. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed. View "Chipola v. Flannery" on Justia Law