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

Consumer Fraud Act Claim Against For-Profit Technical College May Proceed

Suarez v. Eastern International College, 428 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 2012). Plaintiff enrolled at the defendant for-profit college, in its diagnostic medical ultrasound technician program. A school representative told...

Trial Courts Must be Proactive in Ensuring Compliance With Rules Regarding Dismissal With Prejudice for Failure to Make Discovery

A&M Farm & Garden Center v. American Sprinkler Mechanical, LLC, 423 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 2012). No matter how often the courts inveigh against the failure of attorneys and parties to follow...

A "Grandparent vs. Grandparent" Battle Over Child Visitation Rights

Tortorice v. Vanartsdalen, 422 N.J. Super. 242 (App. Div. 2011). A fit natural parent has a fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions, so that a grandparent who seeks visitation rights must...

Municipal Land Use Notice That Described Size of Large Retail Store Need Not Have Stated That Store Was a Wal-Mart

Shakoor Supermarkets, Inc. v. Old Bridge Tp. Planning Bd., 420 N.J. Super. 193 (App. Div. 2011). This case dealt with the issue of how specific a public notice of a development...

"Interests of Justice" Provision Does Not Aid Tax Appeal Plaintiffs Who Did Not Pay Subject Taxes Timely

Dover-Chester Associates v. Randolph Tp., 419 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2011). The procedural history of these consolidated appeals was somewhat convoluted, but the legal issue was straightforward, as Judge Espinosa phrased...

1 23

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)....