NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

At Last! An Agreement is Reached for Governor Murphy to Re-Nominate Rachel Wainer Apter and Nominate Judge Fasciale for Supreme Court Seats

After much delay, an agreement has been reached under which Governor Murphy will re-nominate Rachel Wainer Apter, whom he nominated to fill a Supreme Court seat nearly eighteen months ago,...

Three Appellate Division Judges Are Temporarily Assigned to Sit on the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has been functioning for months with four Justices, plus Judge Fuentes on temporary assignment. Judge Fuentes is due to retire on September 1. At that time, the...

The 2022-2023 General Assignment Order, With Some Shakeups in the Appellate Courts

Today, Chief Justice Rabner issued the 2022-2023 General Assignment Order. From an appellate perspective, the headline news is that Judges Fisher, Sabatino, and Fasciale have been temporarily assigned to the...

The Appellate Division Will Sit in Freehold on August 16

Most Appellate Division oral arguments occur in a few locations, such as Trenton, Newark, Morristown, and Hackensack (though that is not an exhaustive list). Occasionally, however, the Appellate Division sits...

A Class Certification Opinion by Judge Porter, With a Concurring Opinion by … Judge Porter

Allen v. Ollie's Bargain Store, Inc., 37 F.4th 890 (3d Cir. 2022). This blog has reported on several Third Circuit cases in which a unanimous panel opinion was accompanied by...

Another Temporary Assignment to the Appellate Division for Three Judges

Chief Justice Rabner announced that Judges Berdote Byrne, Bishop-Thompson, and Marczyk have each been temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division, effective August 1, 2022. There is no end date for...

When, if at All, Can a Rule 4:19 Examination be Recorded, and When, if Ever, Can a Third Party be Present During an Examination?

DiFiore v. Pezic, 472 N.J. Super. 100 (App. Div. 2022). This opinion by Judge Sabatino exhaustively explored, in three consolidated cases, the issue of "when, if ever, a plaintiff with...

"Summer Breeze Makes Me Feel Fine" and Brings in the Appellate Division's Summer Parts Schedule

This year's "summer" song, to introduce the just-announced Appellate Division summer Parts schedule, is by Seals & Croft. The schedule is different this year as compared to previous ones. Instead...

Grapes Turn Sour for "Mode of Operation" Plaintiff

Jeter v. Sam's Club, ___ N.J. ___ (2022). Writing for a 4-2 majority, Justice Solomon began his opinion for the Court today as follows: "Under the ‘mode of operation' rule,...

Appointing Wife's Children as Her Guardian in Divorce Proceeding Did Not Render Subsequent Settlement Unconscionable

D.M.C. v. K.H.G., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). This Family Part appeal involved the dissolution of a marriage that had lasted 31 years. As Judge Mawla described in...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44…Last

Retired Policeman's Pension Benefits Were Wrongly Paid to His Estranged Spouse Rather Than to His Estate, Where He Had Not Designated Anyone to Receive the Pension Benefit if He Died

Isaac v. Board of Trustees, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Two kinds of benefits are payable to retired members of the.Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS"). One is a pension benefit, a part of the member's compensation for past services. Pension benefits go to the person whom the member designates, or to the member's estate if no designation is made. The other is a survivor's benefit, which goes to the member's widow for the duration of his or her widowhood. Former Newark policeman Keith Isaac made no designation as to his pension benefits, though he did list his estranged wife, Roxanne, as his spouse when he filed for retirement. Based on that, Isaac's pension benefits were distributed to Roxanne. Isaac's estate contested that, and today the Supreme Court held that the estate should have gotten the pension monies....

The Supreme Court Clarifies New Jersey's Automobile Exception to the Requirement of a Search Warrant

State v. Fenimore, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect the people against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and prohibit the issuance of search warrants without "probable cause." Both federal and New Jersey law, however, recognize an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. But New Jersey's automobile exception is narrower than the federal exception, as the Supreme Court stated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015). Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Division in this case had interpreted Witt too broadly in reversing a Law Division decision to exclude evidence from a warrantless search. The Supreme Court reversed and excluded the evidence....

"Liberal Standards" for Standing "Are Not Equivalent to No Standards At All," the Supreme Court Says

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As Justice Pierre-Louis observed in her opinion for a unanimous Court in this case today, New Jersey state courts have long "take[n] a more liberal approach to standing than federal law." But in this appeal, the statute sued upon, the Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. ("FPA"), stated that only a "franchisee" could sue its franchisor. Because plaintiff here ("NJCAR") was not a franchisee but an association of franchisees, NJCAR lacked standing to bring a FPA case....

Compassionate Release Act Does Not Require Physical Examination of Inmates Seeking Relief, But Denial of Relief in This Case Was Arbitrary and Capricious

M.R. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Plaintiff appealed the denial of his petition for release under the Compassionate Release Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51 ("CRA"). He argued that he had not been physically examined by a physician, and that the statute required a physical examination. The Appellate Division determined that the statute did not require a physical examination and upheld the denial of compassionate release. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Hoffman, the Supreme Court agreed that no physical examination was required, but reversed the denial of compassionate relief as insupportable....