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

Proposed Changes to New Jersey Appellate Rules

The Supreme Court has published for comments the report of its Civil Practice Committee. The report is available here. The Committee has proposed revisions to three appellate rules. There are...

Berry Unfortunate for Plaintiff, But Slip and Fall Claim Fails

Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 443 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2016). Today, Judge Suter authored her first published opinion for the Appellate Division. While shopping at a...

Some Appellate Division Insights From Judge Fisher

Last night's meeting of the New Jersey State Bar Association's Appellate Practice Committee featured Judge Fisher. He took questions and discussed various issues of practice and the preferences of Appellate...

Motions in Limine Cannot be Used as a Last-Minute, Short Notice Substitute for a Motion for Summary Judgment

Cho v. Trinitas Regional Medical Center, 443 N.J. Super. 461 (App. Div. 2015). In this medical malpractice case, the only remaining defendant, a doctor, filed what was labeled as "motions...

The NFL Learns a Lesson: Briefs With the Wrong Color Cover Get Bounced

This first post of 2016 reminds us all that appellate courts all have rules that dictate even mundane matters, such as the color of brief covers. Appellate judges take those...

Judges Suter and Vernoia Are Elevated to the Appellate Division

As discussed here, Judges Karen Suter and Francis Vernoia have been serving temporarily on the Appellate Division since October 19, 2015. Their temporary appointments were scheduled to end on December...

The 1,000th Post: A Rare Published Affirmance on the Opinion Below

In re Adoption of Monroe Tp. Housing Element and Fair Share Plan, 442 N.J. Super. 563 (App. Div. 2015). Many intermediate appellate courts frequently issue opinions that affirm on the...

The "Voting Paradox": Perverse and Fascinating

Hanover 3201 Realty, LLC v. Village Supermarkets, Inc., 806 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2015). The number of different issues that judicial opinions present never ceases to amaze. This appeal, which...

A Summary Contempt Proceeding Goes Awry

Ippolito v. Ippolito, 445 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015). This opinion by Judge Fisher today involved an appeal from a summary contempt proceeding. Counsel for plaintiff in this matrimonial...

Qualified Immunity for Funeral Directors

Gately v. Hamilton Memorial Home, Inc., 442 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 2015). Apart from funeral directors, their attorneys, and a small number of judges, it's likely that few people...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 242526 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44…Last

Retired Policeman's Pension Benefits Were Wrongly Paid to His Estranged Spouse Rather Than to His Estate, Where He Had Not Designated Anyone to Receive the Pension Benefit if He Died

Isaac v. Board of Trustees, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Two kinds of benefits are payable to retired members of the.Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS"). One is a pension benefit, a part of the member's compensation for past services. Pension benefits go to the person whom the member designates, or to the member's estate if no designation is made. The other is a survivor's benefit, which goes to the member's widow for the duration of his or her widowhood. Former Newark policeman Keith Isaac made no designation as to his pension benefits, though he did list his estranged wife, Roxanne, as his spouse when he filed for retirement. Based on that, Isaac's pension benefits were distributed to Roxanne. Isaac's estate contested that, and today the Supreme Court held that the estate should have gotten the pension monies....

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....