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

Last Week's Appellate Division Published Opinions

Preparation for an Appellate Division oral argument made it difficult to keep up with that court last week. The Appellate Division issued three published opinions during that time. (The Supreme...

The Public Adjusters Licensing Act and Its Regulations

Zimmerman v. Diviney, 477 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2023). As the New Jersey appellate courts are getting fully geared up for the Term that began on September 1, there...

Expert Testimony That Shaking Alone Can Cause the Injuries Associated With "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is Insufficiently Reliable to be Admissible at Trial

State v. Nieves, 476 N.J. Super. 609 (App. Div. 2023). This was a monumental opinion by Judge Gooden Brown in two consolidated cases. The issue was "the scientific reliability of...

The First Published Appellate Division Decision of the New Term, by Judge Gooden Brown

S.B.B. v. L.B.B., 476 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 2023). Last week saw the first published Appellate Division opinion of the new Term. Judge Gooden Brown authored the opinion. Here...

Expert's Failure to Show That Attorney's Conduct Proximately Caused Damages Defeated Malpractice Claim

Morris Properties, Inc. v. Wheeler, 476 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2023). This was a legal malpractice case, in which Judge Gummer wrote today's opinion for the Appellate Division. Plaintiff...

The First Half of August- Appellate Division Decisions

Continuing the catch-up process begun here and here, this post summarizes the five published Appellate Division decisions issued during the first half of August: Neuwirth v. State of New Jersey,...

Fraud Action Against Municipality and Its Officials Disputing Tax Assessment is Dismissed as Belated "Thinly-Veiled Tax Appeals"

Arsenis v. Borough of Bernardsville, 476 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 2023). The first sentence of Judge DeAlmeida's opinion for the Appellate Division today summarized the issue on appeal in...

This Week's Supreme Court Decisions

In the last three days, the Supreme Court issued opinions in two criminal cases and one civil appeal. All three decisions were unanimous. Here are summaries of those rulings: State...

Plaintiffs Can Seek to Be Accompanied to a Defense Medical Examination by a Third Person or to Record the Examination, and (Contrary to the Appellate Division) Plaintiffs Do Not Bear the Burden of Pro

DiFiore v. Pezic, 254 N.J. 212 (2023). [Disclosure: Catherine B. Derenze, my colleague at Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, argued before the Supreme Court in this case on behalf...

Two Law Against Discrimination Decisions by the Appellate Division

Beneduci v. Graham Curtin P.A., 476 N.J. Super. 73 (App. Div. 2023); Guzman v. M. Texeira Int'l, Inc., 476 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2023). The Appellate Division issued two...

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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83…Last

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....

Prosecutor's Prejudicial Comments During Summation Required Vacation of Conviction on Weapons and Criminal Restraint Charges

State v. Kelly, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Gummer wrote the panel's opinion in this case. The panel reversed defendant's conviction on weapons and criminal restraint charges, based on a set of facts remarkably similar to those in State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (2004)....