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

A Stinging Rebuke to the Board of Immigration Appeals, in an Unusual Three-Judge Concurring Opinion

Quinteros v. Attorney General of the United States of America, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2019). This was an immigration appeal. As Judge Roth summarized it in her opinion for...

Since Percocet Had Not Relieved Pain After Years of Use, Compensation Court Properly Denied Worker's Application for Benefits to Allow Continuation of Percocet

Martin v. Newark Public Schools, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2019). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represents Newark Public Schools in certain matters, but had no involvement...

Four More Grants of Certification by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four more cases. Two of those are criminal appeals, and of the two civil appeals, one is from a published...

An Assortment of New Cases Get Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four more cases. Three of them involve grants of certification. In the fourth appeal, the Court accepted a certified question...

Mandatory Minimum Prison Term for Driving With a License Suspended After Multiple DWI's is Constitutional

State v. Pimentel, 461 N.J. Super. 468 (App. Div. 2019). N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26 prohibits driving with a license suspended due to a second or subsequent conviction for driving while intoxicated. The...

The Next Third Circuit Judicial Conference Will be May 13-15, 2020 in Philadelphia

The Third Circuit has scheduled the next Third Judicial Conference for May 13-15, 2020 at the Penn's Landing Hilton in Philadelphia. As discussed here, the Court had previously announced a...

The Ninth Anniversary of New Jersey Appellate Law Blog

Today marks the ninth anniversary of this blog. As in past years, my thanks go out to all those who read, comment on, cite, forward, or otherwise make use of...

See the Appellate Division in Action in Woodbury Next Tuesday

Most Appellate Division oral arguments occur in Trenton, Newark, Morristown, and Hackensack, though in recent years, panels have been sitting regularly in places such as Jersey City, New Brunswick, and...

Stays Pending Appeal- An Anniversary

Since this is an appellate law blog, its "anniversary" posts (as well as all or virtually all others) deal with appellate decisions. Today's post is an exception, in that it...

The Supreme Court Restructures Remittitur and Additur

Orientale v. Jennings, 239 N.J. 569 (2019). As Justice Albin's opinion for a unanimous Court today described, remittitur and additur (the ability of a trial judge to reduce or increase...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141516 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)....