L.C. VS. M.A.J. (FV-14-0952-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging, in the context of a CEPA claim, “that ‘criminal’ or ‘fraudulent’ activity is often apparent and commonly recognizable”
• distinguishing \criminal\ or \fraudulent\ activity alleged under section 3(c)(2), because often commonly recognizable, from claims asserted under sections 3(c)(1) and (3
• identifying a similar preferred practice in 12 CEPA actions to clarify the nature of the statutory or other premise on which a claimed whistleblowing violation is based
• noting that “[t]he trial court’s focus was on the facts presented, and on that basis we cannot say that the denial of summary judgment . . . was in error” and 30 it is “unfair to reassess the summary judgment record based on arguments that were not advanced”
• first quoting D’Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 192 N.J. 110, 120 (2007); and then quoting Dzwonar v. McDevitt, 177 N.J. 451, 461 (2003)
• “[T]he relevant law or basis should be identified with enough specificity to allow the court to connect the facts to the reasonableness of the perception.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).