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

The Last Half of February in the Supreme Court

Preparation for a big Appellate Division argument at the end of February limited my ability to post for a period of time. But our courts were busy during that time....

The Supreme Court Will Review a Case About In-Court Identifications of a Criminal Defendant

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in State v. Washington. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Did the prosecutor's pretrial preparation...

A Suppression of Evidence Case With "Three Issues of First Impression": Next Stop, Supreme Court?

State v. Scott, 474 N.J. Super. 388 (App. Div. 2023). This was a typically thorough and scholarly opinion by Judge Susswein. It is well worth reading in full. But because...

Witness Tampering Statute is Neither Unconstitutionally Overbroad Nor Vague

State v. Hill, 474 N.J. Super. 366 (App. Div. 2023). Defendant was convicted of carjacking and witness tampering. After the female victim of the carjacking identified defendant to police from...

A Court, Not the Motor Vehicle Commission, Must Address an Application for Sentencing Credit Related to Installation of an Ignition Interlock Device

State v. Coviello, 252 N.J. 539 (2023). Judge Sabatino's unanimous opinion in this case began by posing the "narrow jurisdictional question" before the Court as "When a portion of a...

Two Opinions Today That Emphasize the Need for "Balancing the Interests"

The "balancing of interests" often finds its way into judicial opinions. That is especially so in difficult cases. Two opinions issued today, one by the Supreme Court and one by...

Alimony and Parole Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new appeals. One involves an issue of alimony. The other addresses conditions on parole. The alimony case is Cardall...

Two Supreme Court Opinions in Criminal Cases

State v. Canfield, 252 N.J. 497 (2023). Today, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, in large part, the 137-page opinion of the Appellate Division in this case, which was summarized here....

The Supreme Court in the Second Half of November

After a first half of November with no Supreme Court opinions, the Court issued five opinions in the second half. Two of those decisions were discussed here and here. This...

Trial Judges Have Discretion in What Order to Address Suppression Motions in the Family Part or Waivers to the Criminal Part in Criminal Cases Involving Juveniles Sought to be Tried as Adults

State ex rel. E.S., 252 N.J. 331 (2022). As discussed here, last year the Appellate Division addressed the "unsettled" question of which should come first in a criminal case involving a...

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…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....