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

Four New Temporary Appointees to the Appellate Division

The Supreme Court announced today that four judges are being temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division, "effective March 14, 2022 through May 23, 2022, to serve on such Parts as...

The Supreme Court Upholds the Redistricting Commission's Choice of the Democrats' Congressional District Map

In re Establishment of Congressional Districts by the New Jersey Redistricting Commission, ___ N.J. ___ (2022). As summarized here, in a lawsuit brought directly to the Supreme Court under its...

No Breach of Contract or Negligence Per Se Claims in Medical Negligence Case

Labega v. Joshi, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2022). Judge Accurso's opinion in this case began as follows: "We permitted defendants in this medical malpractice action leave to appeal...

This Week's Published Opinions

On Monday, January 31, I have my first in-person appellate argument since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Preparation for that, and other matters, made the current week go by all too...

Judge Smith Explains the Third Circuit's Standard for Rule 23(f) Appeals of Grants or Denials of Class Certification

Laudato v. EQT Corporation, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. 2022). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) states that "[a] court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting...

Workers' Compensation Benefits Were Due to Plaintiff, Under the "Premises Rule"

Lapsley v. Sparta Tp., ___ N.J. ___ (2022). As discussed here, this Workers' Compensation Act case was one in which plaintiff, a librarian at the Sparta Public Library, was walking...

Back From the Dead

To date, 2022 has not been kind to this blog. Down for a period of time due to malware, and then only partially restored, the blog is now fully ready...

Lodzinski Murder Conviction is Reversed by a 4-3 Supreme Court Vote

State v. Lodzinski, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). Today, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to reverse the murder conviction of Michelle Lodzinski. Previously, as discussed here, the Court had split 3-3...

This Week's Published Opinions

Today is a court holiday for New Jersey state and federal courts. That affords an opportunity to catch up with this week's published opinions from the Supreme Court,, the Appellate...

A Unanimous Civil Rights Act Opinion by a Third Circuit Panel, With a Concurrence in Which All Three Judges Joined. Huh?

Jefferson v. Lias, ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. 2021). Back in 2019, this post discussed a circumstance where two of the three judges on a Third Circuit panel filed an...

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 27 282930 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159…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....