Civil Litigation Track Hot Cases of the New Jersey Supreme Court ...

A-58-11 In re: Context of November 8, 2011 Election of Office of New Jersey General
Assembly, Fourth District (069853)
Does the residency requirement for holding a State legislative office set forth in N.J. Const. art.
IV, §1, 2, violate the United States Constitution?
Certification granted: 1/13/12
Posted: 1/18/12
Argued: 1/27/12
Decided: 02/16/12
A-57-11 Daniel Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc. (069461)
Does the New Jersey Ski Statute, N.J.S.A. 5:13-1 to -12, which establishes standards of care for
ski area operators, also govern liability of individual skiers?
Leave to appeal granted: 1/13/12
Posted: 1/18/12
Argued:
Decided:
A-56-11 State v. Cesar Albert Vargas (069449)
Where police entered an apartment in response to the landlord’s 9-1-1 call in which the landlord
stated that the tenant had not been seen or heard from for more than two weeks, was evidence
seized during the entry admissible in a criminal proceeding against the defendant under the
community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement?
Leave to appeal granted: 1/13/12
Posted: 1/18/12
Argued:
Decided:
A-55-11 State v. Keith R. Buckley (069494)
In this trial on charges of vehicular homicide, was evidence about the victim’s failure to wear a
seat belt and about the placement of a utility pole admissible on the issue of causation?
Leave to appeal granted: 1/13/12
Posted: 1/18/12
Argued:
Decided:
A-54-11 State v. John J. Rockford, III (069106)
Did use by police of a flash-bang device require suppression of evidence seized from defendant's
home under these circumstances?
Appeal as of right (Appellate Division dissent)
Posted: 1/3/12
Argued:
Decided:
A-53-11 State v. Thomas W. Earls (068765)
Was defendant’s arrest valid where law enforcement officers used information from defendant’s
cell phone provider about the general location of the cell phone; and did the plain view exception
to the warrant requirement apply in these circumstances?
Certification granted: 12/13/11
Posted: 12/16/11
Argued:
Decided:
A-52-11 Ten Stary Dom Partnership v. T. Brent Mauro (069079)
Was the planning board’s denial of defendant’s application for a zoning variance due to