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

State v. Czachor

Thirty five years ago today, the Supreme Court decided State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980). In an opinion by Justice Handler, the Court revolutionized the criminal law by abandoning...

Land is Not "Insured Property" Under the Standard Flood Insurance Policy

Torre v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 781 F.3d 651 (3d Cir. 2015). This per curiam opinion deals with insurance coverage for the removal from plaintiffs' land of Hurricane Sandy-generated...

En Banc Review in the Third Circuit

At his CA3Blog today, Matthew Stiegler has this detailed analysis of the eighteen en banc decisions that the Third Circuit has issued since Chief Judge McKee became Chief Judge in 2010. The blog...

A New Practice at the Third Circuit?

Last Thursday, I argued an appeal in the Third Circuit before Judges Chagares, Jordan, and Vanaskie. Ours was the second of two appeals to be argued that day. At the...

Joint Legal Custody When One Parent Has Moved Abroad

Costa v. Costa, 440 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015). This decision today by Judge Leone is a matrimonial appeal. Plaintiff Sandra Costa and defendant Paulo Costa, having married in...

Ascertainability Uber Alles? Not in a (b)(2) Class Action, Says the Third Circuit

Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554 (3d Cir. 2015). In Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013), a damages class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule...

Keeping Current With the Entire Controversy Doctrine

Ricketti v. Barry, 775 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2015). State court judges see a lot of New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine ("ECD"). Some federal judges, not so much. This opinion,...

The Supreme Court Hears Argument on Fair Share Housing Center's Motion for Contempt Against COAH

As previewed here, today was the day on which the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the application of the Fair Share Housing Center to hold the Council on Affordable...

Marcus Aurelius in the Appellate Division

Rosenstein v. State of New Jersey, Dep't of Treasury, 438 N.J. Super. 491 (App. Div. 2014). As this concise opinion by Judge Fisher today explains, in 2011, as part of...

Is the Supreme Court Fed Up With COAH?

When last we left the saga of the Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") and its "third round rules" for the calculation of municipal obligations for low and moderate-income housing, the...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 272829 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)....