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

Where Sample Primary Election Ballots Are Required to be Printed in English and Spanish, Official Primary Ballots Must Also Be

Correa v. Grossi, 458 N.J. Super. 571 (App. Div. 2019). Multiple pieces of related legislation can be inconsistent, and courts are called on to harmonize them using classic principles of...

Judge Nugent Reminds Us That Rule 4:23-5's Requirements Must be "Scrupulously Followed and Technically Complied With"

Salazar v. MKGC + Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551 (App. Div. 2019). In Thabo v. Z Transp., 452 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2017), discussed here, the Appellate Division made...

Waiver, Forfeiture, the Plain Error Doctrine, and the "Third Circuit Model Jury Instructions"

Robinson v. First State Community Action Agency, 920 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2019). This opinion by Judge Fuentes today affirms a plaintiff's verdict in a jury trial under the Americans...

Law Against Discrimination is Not Limited by the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act

Wild v. Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 2019). Plaintiff in this case under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49 ("LAD"), used medical marijuana,...

A Blast From the Past: The Entire Controversy Doctrine and Legal Malpractice Claims

Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman and Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91 (2019). In 1997, the Supreme Court decided Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424 (1997). That decision held,...

The Local Government Ethics Law and Super Storm Sandy

Mondsini v. Local Finance Board, 458 N.J. Super. 290 (App. Div. 2019). This opinion by Judge Messano deals with an issue under the Local Government Ethics Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.1 to...

Courts Can Consider Arguments Not Raised Below in Order "To Accomplish a Just Result"

In re Robert Brown, Police Sergeant (PM0622N), City of Salem, 458 N.J. Super. 284 (App. Div. 2019). As discussed here, in general, appellate courts will not review issues that were...

Damages to a Motor Vehicle From an Accident Can Include Damages for the "Stigma" of Being in an Accident Even Though the Vehicle in Question Was Repaired to Its Pre-Accident Condition

Financial Services Vehicle Trust v. Panter, 458 N.J. Super. 244 (App. Div. 2019). This appeal actually involved four consolidated cases, all of them originating in the Small Claims Part of...

In Wrongful Death Cases, No Expert Testimony is Needed to Establish the Value of the Services of a Loved One

Dutton v. Rando, 458 N.J. Super. 213 (App. Div. 2019). In Lesniak v. County of Bergen, 117 N.J. 12 (1989), the Supreme Court stated that expert testimony is not required...

The Meaning of "Is Violating" or "Is About to Violate the Law" Does Not Cover Past Violations

Federal Trade Commission v. Shire Viropharma, Inc., 917 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2019). A former President of the United States famously uttered the statement that, in interpreting his testimony under...

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 31 323334 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…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....