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

Judge Sabatino's Ruling That Choice of Law Decisions Can be Made Defendant-by-Defendant is Affirmed by the Supreme Court

Ginsberg v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 227 N.J. 7 (2016). Last year, the Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Sabatino, issued a lengthy opinion in this choice of law case. That decision,...

Remittitur Decisions Cannot Take Account of Awards in Other Cases

Cuevas v. Wentworth Group, 226 N.J. 480 (2016). In He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230 (2011), the Supreme Court addressed issues of remittitur at length and in detail. Among other...

Third Circuit Forms a Task Force on Eyewitness Identifications

Chief Judge McKee has announced the formation of a Task Force on Eyewitness Identifications. This seventeen-member body will be co-chaired by Chief Judge McKee and Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the United...

Standing and Mootness in a Ten Commandments Monument Case

Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. New Kensington Arnold School District, 832 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2016). Federal standing law sometimes involves nuances inquiries comparable to the famous question of...

Due Process Requires Counsel for an Indigent Parent in a Private Adoption Case That Would Terminate Parental Rights

In re Adoption of a Child by J.E.V. and D.G.V., 226 N.J. 90 (2016). In this unanimous opinion, authored by Chief Justice Rabner, the Supreme Court ruled that an indigent...

Trial Courts May Not Take Away a Jury Trial as a Sanction for a Rule Violation

Williams v. American Auto Logistics, 226 N.J. 117 (2016). Parties who fail to follow procedural rules are a source of frustration to busy trial judges. As Justice Fernandez-Vina noted in...

Third Circuit Bench-Bar Conference in April 2017 in Lancaster, PA

The Third Circuit has posted a "save the date" notice, available here, for a bench-bar conference next year. The dates are April 19-21, 2017, and the venue will be Lancaster,...

The Appellate Division Goes Back on Tour

It was announced today that on July 25, a panel of the Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Guadagno and Vernoia, will sit at the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold. The...

The 2016-2017 General Assignment Order

Today, Chief Justice Rabner issued the 2016-2017 General Assignment Order, which is available here. This document contains the assignments of all Superior and Tax Court judges for the coming term....

"Purple Prose" Makes the Appellate Division See Red

McRae v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc., 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1598 (App. Div. July 8, 2016). Appellate advocates like to write in ways that make an impact....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 222324 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)....