NJ Supreme Court Justice limits protest
National News
A New Jersey Supreme Court justice who refused to participate in all decisions while a temporary judge is assigned to the bench has tempered his protest.
Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto said in an opinion published Wednesday that he will issue decisions in cases in which Judge Edwin Stern participates, so long as the judge's vote doesn't affect the outcome.
Rivera-Soto said he'll continue to defer a decision to vote in cases where Stern's position changes the outcome.
Rivera-Soto maintains it's unconstitutional to have a temporary justice on the court when a quorum of five is present. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner appointed Stern to fill a vacancy that occurred when Gov. Chris Christie did not reappoint Justice John Wallace in May, leaving the seven-member court one member short.
Democrats who control the state Senate have refused to consider Christie's choice to replace Wallace, corporate lawyer Anne Patterson.
Related listings
-
Court blocks EPA plan to take over permits
National News 01/05/2011A federal appeals court has temporarily blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from taking over greenhouse gas permits in Texas.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued the stay Thursday, pending further action by the court....
-
Federal court denies stay for Texas in EPA case
National News 01/03/2011A federal appeals court has blocked Texas' effort to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from forcing states to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday declined to issue a s...
-
Neb. high court reinstates suit against attorney
National News 01/01/2011The Nebraska Supreme Court has reinstated a lawsuit against an attorney that was filed by a former client convicted of securities fraud.Bryan Behrens had sought to sue Christian Blunk for more than $8 million due to Behrens client-investors. In court...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.