7 results for 'judge:"Rabner "'.
J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly held that a police officer violated the non-disparagement clause in her settlement with the township by stating in a television news interview that she had been abused for eight years and discussing allegedly retaliatory disciplinary charges because the non-disparagement clause would bar speech protected under state anti-discrimination laws, and thus was not enforceable. Further, "survivors of discrimination and harassment have the right to speak about their experiences in any number of ways, and they can no longer be restrained by confidentiality provisions in employment contracts or settlement agreements." Reversed in part.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: May 7, 2024, Case #: A-2-23, Categories: Employment, Defamation, Employment Retaliation
J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly rejected an employee's constitutional challenge in claims contending she had been prohibited from talking about an internal sexual harassment complaint she filed against a supervisor because a duration had not been imposed upon the request that witnesses and involved parties refrain from discussing the case, and the request concerned a large swath of protected speech. Reversed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: May 6, 2024, Case #: A-40-22, Categories: Constitution, Employment Discrimination
[Consolidated.] J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly dismissed a counterclaim contending the condo association wrongfully denied a disabled tenant an emotional support animal because the resident was entitled to seek accommodations to the pet policy, and nothing disputed that his wife suffered several mental health conditions. Meanwhile, the chancery court dismissed the claim without addressing whether the accommodation was unreasonable.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: A-60-22, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Landlord Tenant
J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly upheld defendant's conviction for attempted passion provocation manslaughter based on charges that he shot a bar security guard following an argument because the fact that defendant's mugshots had been shown to witnesses prior to trial had not been disclosed to defense counsel.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: A-29-22, Categories: Manslaughter, Witnesses, Identification
J. Rabner finds the appellate division properly reinstated the indictment for bribery of defendant, who was a mayoral candidate and allegedly accepted $10,000 in cash in a paper bag to appoint that person as the city's tax counsel. The argument that the state's anti-bribery statute does not apply to political candidates or candidates or who are not elected is precluded by the statute's no-defense provision. Further, an ordinary person would understand the statute does not allow a candidate to accept cash in a paper bag in exchange for a future appointment. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: A-17-22, Categories: Bribery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Rabner finds the appellate division improperly upheld defendant's conviction for robbing a bank. In-court identification of defendant by the bank teller months after the crime is inherently suggestive because defendant is the only one obvious to the witness and the prosecution believed him to be the culprit. Further, narration testimony included opinions on what was being viewed in the recording. Reversed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: A-23-22, Categories: Robbery, Identification
[Consolidated.] J. Rabner finds that the appellate division improperly ruled for the state in claims seeking to compel Facebook to provide 30 days' worth of information from two user accounts in two drug cases. State wiretap statutes would apply to the communications requests, and in this case the "privacy interests at stake and the level of intrusion are substantial" since there is no limit to the content the state seeks during that time period. Reversed.
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court, Judge: Rabner , Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: A-7-22, Categories: Constitution, Privacy