United States Supreme Court Upholds Nearly Entire Health Care Law - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Thursday, June 28, 2012
In a 5-4 decision, with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, dissenting, the United States Supreme Court upheld the nearly the entire Health Care Bill finding that Congress possesses the power to enact the challenged provisions. The only issue the majority had with the bill was the Medicaid provision which the opinion indicates is an easy fix.
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax," Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion.
“The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express an opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.”
The entire caption:
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012—Decided June 28, 2012*
*Together with No. 11–398, Department of Health and Human Services et al. v. Florida et al., and No. 11–400, Florida et al. v. Department
of Health and Human Services et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
***
Full decision below...
New Jersey DOT Suspends Video "Red Light" Camera Program Due To Inherent Flaws In System
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Per The Bergen Record:
"The state's Department of Transportation is suspending the red light camera program after learning that a formula used differs from the nationally accepted one.
"The legislation creating the pilot program used a specific formula to determine the proper duration of the yellow light at a traffic signal. That formula, the DOT said, differs from the legally required one that the DOT and municipalities use when installing traffic signals.
"This was a smart move on the part of the DOT, from both a safety and fairness perspective," said Assemblywoman Valerie Valnieri Huttle, D-Bergen. "The pilot program has proven invasive and potentially dangerous. It's time to pass the bipartisan legislation I've sponsored to disband this program altogether."
"Locally, two towns impacted by the program's suspension are Englewood Cliffs and Palisades Park. The suspension order impacts 63 of the 85 intersections statewide where red light cameras are operating or were approved for installation.
"Englewood Cliffs installed a red light traffic camera at the intersection of Palisade and Sylvan avenues to help reduce the number of accidents at the location."
More after the jump...
State v. Palma - New Jersey Appellate Division Holds That Pedestrian Death Does Not Result In Per Se Jail Sentence
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Appellate Division, in a per curiam decision, vacated defendant's jail sentence and remanded the case, State v. Palma, A-3473-10, for development of a record of aggravating and mitigating factors in lieu of a hard-line rule whereby a pedestrian death would be dispositive to sentence a driver to jail.
Per the decision:
"Defendant's guilty plea arose out of a motor vehicle accident that took place on February 22, 2010, in Red Bank. Defendant was traveling eastbound on Bergen Place, then stopped at a red light at the intersection with Broad Street. After the light turned green, she made a left turn and proceeded northbound on Broad Street. At that time, a motorist in the southbound lane signaled to defendant that she had just hit a pedestrian. Defendant immediately stopped her SUV. Unbeknownst to defendant, she had dragged the pedestrian, who was lodged underneath her car, down Broad Street. Almost two months later, the victim died of injuries incurred in the accident.
"Defendant voluntarily submitted to a blood test, which revealed she was not using intoxicating substances. Defendant also voluntarily produced her cellular phone records, which did not reveal that she was using her cell phone at the time of the accident. There was no evidence defendant intentionally struck the victim or had fallen asleep while driving. There was also no credible evidence defendant had run the traffic signal, exceeded the speed limit, or had acted recklessly. As a result, the State charged defendant with careless driving, to which she entered a plea of guilty."
More after the jump...
Southern Union Co. v. United States - United States Supreme Court Holds That Jury Must Determine Facts To Increase Criminal Fine
Monday, June 25, 2012
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial prohibits a judge from determining those facts necessary to increase the fine imposed in a criminal case. Instead, such findings are left squarely within the province of the jury.
Southern Union Co. v. United States, 11-94 builds on
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000) and
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296 (2004). To wit:
"While the punishments at stake in these cases were imprisonment or a death sentence, there is no principled basis under Apprendi to treat criminal fines differently. Apprendi’s “core concern”—to reserve to the jury “the determination of facts that warrant punishment for a specific statutory offense,” Ice, 555 U.S., at 170—applies whether the sentence is a criminal fine or imprisonment or death. Criminal fines, like these other forms of punishment, are penalties inflicted by the sovereign for the commission of offenses. Fines were by far the most common form of noncapital punishment in colonial America and they continue to be frequently imposed today. And, the amount of a fine, like the maximum term of imprisonment or eligibility for the death penalty, is often determined by reference to particular facts. The Government argues that fines are less onerous than incarceration and the death sentence and therefore should be exempt from Apprendi. But where a fine is substantial enough to trigger the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, Apprendi applies in full."
The decision overturns an $18 million penalty against a pipeline operator for illegally storing mercury.
Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
More after the jump...
New Jersey Supreme Court Jettison's Doctrine of Laches
Thursday, June 21, 2012
In
Fox v. Millman, A-39/40-10, Justice Helen Hoens authoring for a unanimous Court wrote:
"Substituting the equitable doctrine of laches for the clear guidance expressed in statutes of limitations would create a chaotic and unpredictable patchwork in which the only certainty would be the inconsistency of outcomes as different judges, or, as in this matter, juries, evaluate timeliness individually[.]"
Likewise, "even were we to agree in principle that laches might be applied so as to shorten an otherwise permissible period for initiation of litigation,
we would nonetheless conclude that only the rarest of circumstances and only overwhelming equitable concerns would allow for that result[.]" (
emphasis added).
Similarly, the Court's syllabus also notes:
"The United States Supreme Court has observed that if a suit in equity raises claims as to which there is an applicable statute of limitations, it does not preclude the defense of laches, provided there has been unreasonable delay within the time limited by the statute.
Patterson v. Hewitt, 195 U.S. 309, 318
(1904). On the other hand, if the suit is an action at law, the United States Supreme Court has held that applying laches within the term of the governing statute of limitations is no defense at law. United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480, 489 (1935). This Court has traditionally conformed to this distinction between law and equity in considering the application of laches."
***
" Although Lavin v. Hackensack Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 145 (1982), was limited to applying laches to a claim not governed by any statute of limitations, the trial and appellate courts relied on a footnote in Lavin, which discussed applying laches to defeat a claim despite the fact that the time fixed by an analogous statute of limitations had not passed, to conclude that it was appropriate to utilize laches in this case. The Court disagrees. Causes of action brought at law are governed in the first instance by statutes of limitations that have been fixed by the Legislature to create defined and regularly applicable periods against which to determine timeliness. Laches, on the other hand, remains an equitable doctrine, utilized to achieve fairness."
Full decision after the jump...
Sanctions Upheld For Failure To Preserve Allegedly Privileged Emails
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
In Goldmark v. Mellina, A-5918-10, the Appellate Division upheld a fine levied against a party's firm for failing to preserve emails it alleged to be privileged. In so holding, the Court wrote that the assertion of privilege does not relieve counsel of the obligation to preserve the communications for a possible in camera inspection.
In a per curiam decision, the Court held, "Upon taking the position that relevant material is privileged or subject to protection from discovery, a litigant has the obligation of maintaining and eventually disclosing the material as directed by the court. See, e.g., R. 4:10-2(e)(1). It would make a mockery of our discovery rules to allow a party or its counsel -- after identifying privileged information -- to destroy or carelessly lose or misplace the materials in question."
***
"Sellers' counsel's obligation to preserve those documents pending the court's further direction arose at that moment, if not sooner, see RPC 3.4(a), and was particularly enhanced in this case because one of the parties to those communications was terminally ill."
More below...
Gov. Christie nominates Edward DeFazio & Peter Bogaard to the Superior Court Bench
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Following up his recent string of nominations, Gov. Christie's run continues. Links below.
Minor's Explicit Instant Messages Inadmissible In Abuse Trial
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Justice Anne Patterson, for a unanimous Court in State v. J.A.C. A-102-10 held, "The content of the instant messages written by and to the victim in this case constitutes 'sexual conduct' within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7(f), and that content is therefore protected by New Jersey’s Rape Shield Law. Any probative value of the content of the victim’s messages is substantially outweighed by its prejudice."
Similarly, "[w]hether C.A.’s attempts to impersonate an experienced adult communicated fact or fantasy, the instant messages clearly constituted 'sexual conduct' and the trial court’s determination that the communications fell within the scope of the Rape Shield Law was correct. The specific content of C.A.’s instant messages is at best minimally relevant to defendant’s effort to demonstrate the child’s motive to lie. The testimony permitted by the trial court unmistakably established that C.A. implicated defendant in the midst of a confrontation with her parents and teachers that was unprecedented in her young life. The instant messages, however, are not admissible to prove that this victim had a propensity for invention. A ruling permitting detailed questioning about the language of the messages could have a profound and permanent impact on a sixteen-year-old victim, invading her privacy and subjecting her to a humiliating experience without advancing the truth-seeking purpose of a trial. Such a ruling would divert the attention of the jury from the crimes alleged and would effect considerable prejudice in this case without any corresponding benefit because the contested evidence is of minimal probative value. Consistent with the Legislature’s objective in enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7, and this Court’s analysis in Budis and Garron, the trial court properly excluded the evidence."
***
Full decision below.
11th Circuit Finds Banana Peel Potential Evidence of Bias
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Per NJLJ, in Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, No. 11-10416:
"A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled unanimously that banana peels can be evidence of racial harassment supporting an employment discrimination claim by an African-American man.
***
"William Acker Jr., a senior U.S. district judge in the Northern District of Alabama, granted summary judgment to UPS in December 2010. Acker said Jones' treatment was not sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile working environment, concluding "there is nothing inherently racist about a banana, absent direct supporting evidence."
"But Ripple wrote that the appellate panel had "no difficulty" concluding that the evidence created a jury question on the banana issue. Quoting language used by the Third and Seventh Circuits, Ripple wrote, "it has become easier to coat various forms of discrimination with the appearance of propriety because the threat of liability takes that which was once overt and makes it subtle."
"Ripple wrote that Jones' version of events suggested the bananas were not appearing on his truck by mere chance: Jones said he found bananas on his truck on multiple occasions, they were always in one of two places on the truck even though he parked it in a different location each night, and there's no evidence that bananas were found on any other truck or that Jones found any other trash on his truck. Ripple added that UPS could make to a jury its argument that it was just as likely the bananas had nothing to do with Jones or his race."
More after the jump (registration required)...
New Jersey Supreme Court Holds Condo Ban on Political Signs Unconstitutional
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
In Wednesday's 5-1 opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Khan (A-65-10) (067094) held that "[b]alancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrook’s private property interest against Khan’s free speech right to post political signs on his own property, the sign policy in question violate[d] the free speech clause of the State Constitution."
Full text of the decision below.
New Jersey Appellate Division Holds No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a Cell Phone Number
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Excerpts from
State v. DeFranco, A-2054-10:
"While the victim remained with Det. Potter on November 10, the new number, which had an area code different from the -973 area code for towns in Morris County, was tried. Although at first the call went to voice mail, on a second try, the call was answered by defendant, who exhibited no surprise that the victim
had defendant's number and never indicated that the number, which belonged to defendant's cell phone, was in any respect private.
"We perceive a significant difference between the "generated information" afforded protection by the New Jersey Supreme Court in its privacy decisions and the "assigned information" that defendant seeks to protect in this case. The ISP records, the long-distance billing information, the banking records, and the
utility usage records of Reid, Hunt, McAllister, and Domicz, respectively, constituted the keys to the details of the lives of those to which the seemingly innocuous initial information pertained. While in some circumstances, knowledge of a telephone number might be equally revelatory, here it was not. The number was simply a number. In the circumstances of this case, we do not find that defendant's professed subjective expectation of privacy is one that society would be willing to recognize as reasonable."
Full decision below.
New Jersey Senate Panel Recommends Increases in Fines for Cell Phone Use While Driving
Monday, June 11, 2012
From the New Jersey Law Journal:
"The New Jersey Senate Law and Public Safety Committee on Monday recommended increased fines for texting or talking on a cell phone while driving.
"The committee passed a measure, S-69, that would raise the current $100 fine to $200 for a first offense, $400 for a second offense and $600 for a third or subsequent offense.
"Third and subsequent offenders would receive three motor vehicle penalty points and could face a 90-day drivers' license suspension.
"The bill's sponsor, Sen. Richard Codey, D-Essex, testified that research has shown that drunken drivers have reaction times 10 times better than drivers texting or talking on a cell phone."
More after the jump (registration required)...
Federal Estate Tax Changes a Factor in Calculating Damages in Wrongful Death Cases
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Beim v. Hulfish, A-5947-10
--- N.J. Super. --- (App. Div. 2012).
"This appeal arises in connection with the Wrongful Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:31-1 to -6. The novel issue presented is whether an heir's loss of a prospective inheritance resulting from the imposition of increased estate taxes —— incurred due to the premature death of a decedent —— is recoverable in a
wrongful death action. Because such a tangible, readily calculable diminishment in an heir's expectancy is in the nature of "pecuniary injuries resulting from such death," N.J.S.A. 2A:31-5, we conclude that it is an element of damages for the jury to consider in this case, subject to appropriate expert evidence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
***
"In 2008, Mr. Kellogg's estate paid $1,196,083.57 in estate taxes. Plaintiffs allege that had Mr. Kellogg survived until 2009 or later, his estate's tax obligation would have been reduced by $626,083 in 2009, and by the full amount of $1,196,083.57 in 2010. See Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (the 2001 Act), Pub. L. No. 107-16, 115 Stat. 38, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.) (reducing estate taxes in 2009 and eliminating them entirely for 2010 only). The 2001 Act was set to expire on December 31, 2010, returning the estate tax to its pre-2001 configuration pursuant to a built-in sunset provision.
"On December 17, 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the 2010 Act), Pub. L. No. 111-312, §301, 124 Stat. 3296, (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.) went into effect. The 2010 Act extended the estate tax provisions of the 2001 Act through 2012.
"In the Law Division, plaintiffs sought to recover the difference in estate tax consequences between 2008 and a later year with reduced estate taxes (depending upon what year the jury determined was the appropriate date of death), as damages under the Wrongful Death Act. Their theory was that Mr. Kellogg's heirs suffered a lost inheritance —— or at least the loss of a substantial portion of an inheritance —— by the early imposition of greater estate taxes, and that such loss is recoverable as "pecuniary injuries" under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-5 since it was the fault of defendants' tortious conduct."