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

Powering Up Again

The power outage resulting from last week's storm put a crimp in much of that week. So it is time once again to catch up with our Supreme Court and...

Consumer Fraud Act and Product Liability Act Claims Can Co-Exist

Sun Chemical Corp. v. Fike Corp., 243 N.J. 319 (2020). This opinion by Justice Solomon today resolved another question (originally, multiple questions, but reformulated into a single question by the...

The 2020-21 General Assignment Order

Chief Justice Rabner has issued the General Assignment Order for 2020-21, which is available here. Judge Ostrer has replaced Judge Koblitz, who will be retiring, as Presiding Judge of Part...

Judge Russo is Removed From Office Due to "Flagrant and Serious Acts of Misconduct"

Matter of Russo., 242 N.J. 179 (2020). As Chief Justice Rabner recounted in his opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court yesterday, Judge John F. Russo, Jr., has been an attorney...

"In the Good Old Summertime"- Appellate Division Summer Parts

Chief Justice Rabner has announced the lineup of Appellate Division Parts for the coming summer. The schedule consists of six 14-day "Sessions," beginning on June 15 and ending on September...

Judges Gummer and Smith Will be Temporarily Assigned to the Appellate Division as of September 1

Chief Justice Rabner announced the temporary assignment of two judges to the Appellate Division. The two judges, Katie Gummer and Morris Smith, will begin their temporary assignments on September 1,...

"Do's and Don'ts of Appellate Practice- A February 25, 2020 Webinar

On February 25, from noon- 2 PM, NJICLE will presenting a webinar titled "Do's and Don'ts of Appellate Practice." I will be a panelist, along with Judges Koblitz and Sumners...

Why Do We Still Have "Unpublished" Appellate Division Opinions?

State v. Thompson, 462 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 2020). Judge Fisher, in this ruling issued today in a DWI case, "readily acknowledge[d] this opinion expresses nothing new." One might...

Judges Koblitz and Sumners Share Their Wisdom

Last night's meeting of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Appellate Practice Committee featured a guest appearance by Judges Koblitz and Sumners. They took questions and shared advice about appellate...

How to Get Appellate Judges Angry: Attack Their Opinion as Too Concise

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. A.L., 462 N.J. Super. 127 (App. Div. 2020). On October 28, 2019, in a per curiam opinion that can be found...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131415 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

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)....