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

Welcome to the 21st Century! Playbacks of Testimony in Videotaped Trials

State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 79 (2011). Today, live court reporters are rare in state courts. Most courtrooms rely on video or audio recording of trials instead. The issue in this multi-count...

Interpreting Indemnification Agreements

Keiffer v. Best Buy, 205 N.J. 213 (2011). This opinion deals with the interpretation of an indemnification agreement. It seems an unusual case for the Court to have taken, since most of Justice Albin's opinion, for...

Lombardi v. Masso to be Argued on March 28

As discussed here, Lombardi v. Masso, a case pending in the Supreme Court of New Jersey, presents potentially important issues regarding the application of the law of the case doctrine. The Court...

What is a "School"?

State v. Shelley, 205 N.J. 320 (2011). Statutory interpretation questions pop up endlessly. In this case, defendant was accused of selling cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, which criminalizes drug...

All Five Women Supreme Court Justices Speak

Imagine that someone assembled Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Kobe Bryant to discuss how to win NBA championships. The parallel to such a gathering, for those interested...

"Hurtful" Speech on "Matters of Public Concern" Is Protected by the First Amendment

Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011). Members of a Baptist church who believe that God punishes the United States and its military for tolerating homosexuality picketed near a soldier's...

Time Limit to Appeal to Special Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is Not Jurisdictional

Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011). In 1988, in the Veterans Judicial Review Act ("VJRA"), Congress created the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, an Article I court that...

Strict Liability for Violations of Consumer Fraud Act Regulations

For years after the adoption of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. ("CFA"), it was unclear whether a violation of a regulation promulgated under the authority...

A Red-Letter Date in Administrative Law

On February 27, 1950, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided Handlon v. Town of Belleville, 4 N.J. 99 (1950). The case was one of the first decided by the...

State-Law Vaccine Cases Are Preempted by Federal Law, But A Seatbelt Suit Is Not

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011), and Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.., 131 S. Ct. 1131 (2011). On February 22, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United...

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142143144 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....