NJ Appellate Law Blog

Three More Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

Much of last week was consumed by a sojourn in Hershey, PA for the Third Circuit Judicial Conference, a very enjoyable and educational experience. As a result, it's time for some catching up. Today's is the first such post....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Does Denying a Father's Right to Communicate With His Son Due to the Father's Inability to Pay for Reunification Therapy Violate Due Process?

On Wednesday, April 29, judges on Part B of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Dornacker v. Laborante. The case is an unusual one....

April's Supreme Court Grants of Review So Far

As April nears its halfway point, the Supreme Court has granted review in five new appeals, according to announcements by the Court. One of those is an ethics matter in which the Court granted a petition for review. The other four are criminal appeals. The Court granted certification in two of those cases and leave to appeal in the other two....

Starting Fresh in April

After a hiatus, for Passover and other reasons, this blog is back in action and ready to cover New Jersey appellate developments in April. This month has seen only two published opinions, both in criminal appeals, from the Appellate Division so far. There have not yet been any Supreme Court opinions this month....

Catching Up Again: Four Opinions

Due to the press of other work, it's been awhile since this blog reported on Supreme Court and published Appellate Division decisions. There are four opinions to discuss, one of which addressed two cases in a single ruling. Here are summaries:...

A Blizzard of Criminal Law Decisions Last Week

[Couldn't resist the title given last week's major blizzard in New Jersey] Last week was a big week for decisions in criminal appeals. All three of the Supreme Court's opinions last week, and both of last week's published Appellate Division opinions, were in criminal cases. Here are summaries....

Catching Up With (Some of) the Appellate Division's January 2026 Published Opinions

While this blog was on hiatus for much of January, the Appellate Division was in high gear, issuing thirteen published opinions. Here are summaries of some of those opinions:...

The Rest of January 2026- Supreme Court Opinions

Due to a confluence of factors, the most recent post on this blog was in the first week of January. This post, and others to follow, will catch up with the activities of our appellate courts for the rest of January....

The Second Half of December

The last two weeks have seen no Supreme Court opinions. But the Appellate Division published three opinions, two of them in the criminal realm and one civil appeal. Here are summaries, to close out 2025:...

One From the Supreme Court and Two From the Appellate Division

The end of last week saw the issuance of one Supreme Court ruling and two published Appellate Division decisions. Two of those were in criminal appeals. The third involved the exclusion of an expert witness in a medical malpractice case....

12 3 4…Last

Three Supreme Court Decisions to Catch Up On

This is the second post that catches up with appellate developments last week and this week. The Supreme Court issued rulings in three cases during that period. Two of those appeals involved unanimous opinions. The third engendered a relatively rare 5-2 split among the Justices. Here are summaries:...

Three More Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

Statutory Ban on Retroactive Reduction of Court-Ordered Child Support is Inapplicable to Reductions Based on a Child's Emancipation

Bournes v. Harris, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). This post-dissolution appeal from the Family Part involved several questions arising out of a Marital Settlement Agreement ("MSA") entered in a Texas court. In an opinion by Judge Firko, the Appellate Division affirmed a ruling by Judge Lougy, whom the panel identified by name, that New Jersey courts had jurisdiction to enforce and to modify the Texas MSA, and that Judge Lougy properly enforced arrears....

Common Law Bad Faith Claims and Claims Under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act Should, In Many Cases, be Deferred Until After Resolution of Underinsured Motorist Claims

Tenenbaum v. Allstate Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2026). Judge Natali's opinion for the Appellate Division in this matter today involved two matters that were before the court on leave to appeal. The issue in both cases was whether and when "common law bad faith claims under Pickett v. Lloyd's, 131 N.J. 457, 467 (1993), and those brought under the recently adopted Insurance Fair Conduct Act (IFCA), N.J.S.A. 17:29BB-1 to -3," should be stayed until resolution of all disputes relating to underinsured motorist ("UIM") claims brought in the same action....