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

The "Colonel" May be Going to the Supreme Court

Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 434 N.J. Super. 558 (App. Div. 2014). In Arroyo v. Durling Realty, LLC, 443 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2013), discussed here, Judge Sabatino discussed the "mode of...

"Third Circuit Practice: A Practitioner's Guide"

At the upcoming 38th Annual United States District Court Judicial Conference sponsored by the Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey on March 20, 2014, one of the programs...

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Washing Machine Class Actions

For many months, the class action defendants' lobby has highlighted two Circuit Court opinions as the latest poster boys in a campaign whose ultimate goal is to abolish class actions....

Governor Christie Withdraws Hanna Nomination to the Supreme Court

According to a report on nj.com today, Governor Christie is withdrawing his nomination of Robert Hanna to the Supreme Court. Hanna and Governor Christie's other Supreme Court nominee, Monmouth County...

Criminal Charges Against an Employee Who Steals Her Employer's Documents to Aid in Her Separate Employment Discrimination Suit

This post is by my colleague Jeffrey A. Shooman. He discusses an important criminal law decision that the Appellate Division issued today. State v. Saavedra, 433 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2013). At...

Judges Rothstadt and O'Connor Are Elevated to the Appellate Division

Chief Justice Rabner announced today that Judges Garry S. Rothstadt and Amy O'Connor will be elevated to the Appellate Division effective December 16, 2013. Judge Rothstadt is a graduate of...

Two Signed Not-for-Publication Opinions Issued Today

As noted here, it is highly unusual for Appellate Division not-for-publication opinions to be signed, as opposed to being issued per curiam. Today, however, two of the four opinions issued...

Discovery and Severance

Procopio v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 433 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2013). As Judge Parrillo stated in today's opinion, rulings of trial level judges on discovery matters, and on whether...

The Requirement of Findings and Conclusions by Trial Level Judges

There are many, many decisions, including this published ruling by Judge Lihotz, that implement the directive of Rule 1:7-4 that a trial judge "shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either...

Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)- The "That's Ridiculous" Rule

Most judges dislike briefs that assert that an adversary's legal argument is "ridiculous," "absurd," "preposterous," or the like. Judges often say that a statement that an opposing position is "without...

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 28 29 30 313233 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)....