Supreme Court of New Jersey

New Jersey Again Follows California Tort Decisions

Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286 (2010). In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that an exterior finish on a home was not integrated into the home...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324

Appeals About Land Use, Statutory Interpretation, Validity of a Warrantless Dumpster Search, and the Speech and Debate Clause for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four new appeals. In two of those matters, the Court granted leave to appeal. The other two cases are before the Court on grants of certification....

October in the Appellate Division

After issuing only one published opinion in the Term that began on September 1 (a well-reasoned opinion by Judge Rose in Carbone v. Bd. of Trustees, ___ N.J. Super. __, 2026 N.J. Super. LEXIS 79 (App. Div. Sept. 11, 2026)), the Appellate Division issued four published rulings in the final third of October. Here are summaries:...

LDGA's Appellate Practice Group Wins Tier 1 Recognition in Best Lawyers in America®

Best Lawyers in America® has listed my firm's Appellate Practice group in Tier 1 of Best Lawyers' New Jersey rankings. As the leader of that practice, I congratulate all the members of the Appellate Practice group on this recognition. I'm also very proud of my colleagues in the other practice groups that received Tier recognition in Best Lawyers....

The First Supreme Court Decision of the Current Term: A Challenging One

Association for Government Responsibility, Ethics and Transparency v. Borough of Mantoloking, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). The issue in this Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") case, which also implicated the common law right of access, was whether the identity of the sender of an email is subject to disclosure under either body of law. By a 5-2 vote, the Court said the sender's identity was a government record subject to OPRA and not protected by the work product doctrine. But the Court held that disclosure was not required, as the sender's reasonable expectation of privacy outweighed the interest in disclosure....