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

Supreme Court Announces Rule Amendments to be Effective on September 1, 2012

The Supreme Court has approved amendments to a number of Court Rules. The amendments take effect on September 1, 2012. The changes to the appellate rules fall into four general...

No Emotional Distress Damages for Witnessing Death of Pet

McDougall v. Lamm, 211 N.J. 203 (2012). In Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980), the Supreme Court established limited circumstances under which a person who observes the negligently-caused death...

Legislature Votes to Place Constitutional Amendment Regarding Judicial Pensions/Healthcare on the November Ballot

Racing to meet an August 2 deadline for putting on the November ballot a proposal to amend the New Jersey Constitution in response to the Supreme Court's decision in DePascale...

Rutgers Violated Open Public Meetings Act in Some Respects, But That Statute Gave Plaintiff No Remedy

McGovern v. Rutgers, The State University, 211 N.J. 94 (2012). Plaintiff complained that the Board of Governors of Rutgers, The State University, violated the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6...

DePascale v. New Jersey: The Supreme Court Speaks

DePascale v. State of New Jersey, 211 N.J. 40 (2012). Article VI, section 6, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution states that "[t]he Justices of the Supreme Court and...

Supreme Court Will Issue DePascale Decision Tomorrow

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will issue its decision in DePascale v. New Jersey, the "Judges Pension Case," tomorrow at 10 A.M. The ruling is likely to...

Sales Taxes Under the Bankruptcy Code: A Fascinating, and Difficult, Issue of Statutory Interpretation

In re Michael Calabrese, Jr., 689 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2012). Most issues of statutory interpretation can be resolved either by the plain language of the statute, by an analysis of...

Can an Insurer, Suspicious of Insurance Fraud, Require Health Providers Who Seek Reimbursement from the Insurer, to Supply Information About Their Ownership Structure and Billing Practices?

Selective Ins. Co. v. Hudson East Pain Management, 210 N.J. 597 (2012). Defendants provided medical treatment to patients who had personal injury protection ("PIP") insurance through plaintiff ("Selective"). The patients assigned their right to...

Immunity Statute Protects Rescue Squad Personnel, but Not the Rescue Squad as an Entity

Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, 210 N.J. 581 (2012). Plaintiffs' son was shot in the chest by his brother. The Plainfield Rescue Squad was called. But there was allegedly a prolonged delay in transporting...

Supreme Court Will Review State v. Heine

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has granted certification in State v. Heine, 424 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div. 2012). The Appellate Division's decision is discussed here. The...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123124125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146…Last

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....

South Seaside Park Can Detach Itself From Berkeley Township

Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). South Seaside Park is a small (490 year-round residents) barrier island community that has been annexed to the Township of Berkeley ("the Township"). South Seaside Park sought to deannex itself from the Township and to be annexed instead to the Borough of Seaside Park. South Seaside Park followed a statutory petitioning procedure in doing so. The Township refused consent. South Seaside Park went to court and won a ruling from the Law Division that rejected the Township's refusal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed as well....

Megan's Law "Not Likely to Pose a Threat to the Safety of Others" Extends to Non-Sexual as Well as Sexual Re-Offenses

In re Registrant S.O., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal presented a pure legal issue relating to the "public safety prongs" contained in the termination provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and the Community Supervision for Life statute ("CSL"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c). Judge Vanek crystallized that "novel" issue as "whether, on a registrant's application to terminate Megan's Law and CSL obligations, the phrase ‘not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others' should be broadly interpreted with the trial court considering threats to safety from subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses or whether the inquiry should be limited to the threat of sexual re-offense only." The panel held that the broader view was the correct one....