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

Judges Suter and Vernoia Temporarily Assigned to the Appellate Division

Chief Justice Rabner announced yesterday that Judges Karen Suter and Francis Vernoia are being temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division. For the period of October 19 through December 27, 2015,...

Disgorgement of Employee's Compensation May be Awarded Even Where Breach of Duty of Loyalty to Employer Does Not Cause Damage

Kaye v. Rosefielde, 223 N.J. 218 (2015). Kaye v. Rosefielde, 432 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 2013), discussed here, seemed destined for Supreme Court review. The Court did grant review,...

A Unanimous Three-Judge Panel Opinion, With a Unanimous Concurrence by the Same Three Judges. Huh??

Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015). For a single judge on a three-judge Third Circuit panel to issue a concurring opinion is...

Jack Trubenbach Retires

Jack Trubenbach may be the most important person at the Appellate Division whom few people know about. For exactly 36 years, beginning on September 1, 1979, he has been with...

What is an "Agenda"? Perhaps the Supreme Court Should Tell Us

Opderbeck v. Midland Park Bd. of Educ., 442 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 2015). The Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21 ("OPMA"), adopted in 1975, requires advance notice...

A Rebuttal on Equitable Mootness

In re Tribune Media Company, 799 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2015). Roughly one month ago, Judge Krause authored a powerful concurring opinion in In re One2One Communications, LLC, 805 F.3d...

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Carrera Ascertainability, and Cites Judge Fisher With Approval

Regular readers of this blog have seen frequent criticism of the class action "ascertainability" doctrine espoused by Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013). Recently, as discussed...

"Retired and on Recall" Superior Court Judges are Constitutional, Supreme Court Says in State v. Buckner

State v. Buckner, 223 N.J. 1 (2015). In one of the biggest cases of the current the Supreme Court term, the Court today upheld the practice of permitting retired judges...

Prudent Practitioners Prune Points on Appeal

The point has often been made, including here and here, that appellants' briefs are best off if they focus on the few best arguments available, rather than raising every conceivable...

Land Use Litigant Cannot "Make a Mockery of the Exhaustion Doctrine"

Casser v. Knowlton Tp., 441 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 2015). Two consolidated cases, three Law Division judges who had pieces of these matters, and a lengthy and convoluted procedural...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627 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)....