In the case In re Civil Commitment of S.S., 372 N.J. Super. 13, 855 A.2d 30 (App. Div. 2004), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed a judgment involuntarily committing the petitioner to the Special Treatment Unit as a sexually violent predator under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J. Stat.
In the case In re Civil Commitment of W.X.C., 204 N.J. 179, 8 A.3d 174 (2010), the defendant was convicted of multiple violent sexual offenses after burglarizing two homes. In one incident, he raped a woman while threatening her with a knife, and in another, he raped a woman while threatening her with a gun. He also entered a nursing home, forced a female resident into a bedroom, and demanded that she perform oral sex. The defendant entered a plea agreement that resulted in a twenty-four-year prison sentence with twelve years of parole ineligibility.
Pregnant minor filed an application for judicial bypass to receive an abortion without notifying her parents. The district court did not rule on the application or make findings of fact, but issued a writing that sua sponte concluded that the parental bypass law was unconstitutional. Doe appealed due to uncertainty about the judgment, and the court of appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that because the judge did not issue findings of fact within two business days, her application was deemed granted.
In the case In re Doe, a juvenile filed a petition in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, seeking a judicial bypass to obtain an abortion without parental notification. The trial court denied the request, finding that she lacked sufficient maturity and information to make the decision independently. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the juvenile was mature and well-informed enough to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
In Goodell, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin refused to include women within the construction of the word “person” and denied Goodell admission to the bar because she was a woman.
Plaintiff worked for the defendant as a police officer. During training where plaintiff was one of three women amongst twenty-four participants, plaintiff started to feel that she could never raise complaints because of her gender as a result of comments such as how the male troopers had better “watch out” or she would charge them with sexual harassment, or about another female trooper whose sex discrimination complaint had been dismissed by the Board.
The Supreme Court stated that a woman could not be admitted to the bar because she was under a common law disability: she did not have the right to enter into contracts with third persons without the permission of her husband.
This case addressed the claims of Etta Haynie Maddox that she should be allowed to sit for the bar examination and receive admission to the bar despite a Maryland state statute limiting bar admission to “male citizens of Maryland.” The Maryland Court of Appeals denied her application, stating that the court did not have the power to enact legislation. Thus until the legislative branch declared that women could be admitted to the bar, the court did not have any power to admit Maddox.
In May of 1990, Piatt represented clients A and B in their respective domestic relations actions. During his representation of client A, Piatt repeatedly asked her questions such as whether she had masturbated at the age of fourteen, and whether she had ever had sexual relationship without emotional involvement. He also made comments about the length of client A’s skirt and how “delicious” she looked. Piatt later told client A during a meeting that if she did not respond to his sexual advances, he would be forced to charge her a large sum of money for continued representat
In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997) is a case where the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether firearms seized following a domestic violence complaint must be returned once the complaint is withdrawn or dismissed. The Court held that the dismissal of a complaint does not mandate return of weapons under N.J.
