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

Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction

Reinig v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 912 F.3d 115 (3d Cir. 2018). This was the final published opinion of 2018 for the Third Circuit. Authored by Judge Vanaskie, the opinion reverses...

Receiver of a Defrauded Entity May Initiate Arbitration Even if Entity's Shareholders Will Ultimately Benefit From Any Recovery

Interactive Brokers, LLC v. Barry, 457 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2018). This final post of 2018 features an opinion issued today by Judge Currier. The case arose out of...

Equitable Distribution of Restricted Stock in a Divorce

M.G. v. S.M., 457 N.J. Super. 286 (App. Div. 2018). As Judge Mawla stated in his opinion in this case today, "[i]ncreasingly, executive compensation has been achieved through means other...

Direct vs. Derivative Claims Among Shareholders of a Close Corporation

Tully v. Mirz, 457 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion by Judge Geiger today addresses the question of what claims, between two owners of a closely-held corporation, are...

"Bridgegate" Wire Fraud Convictions Are Affirmed, While Civil Rights Convictions Are Reversed

United States v. Baroni, 909 F.3d 550 (3d Cir. 2018). In a unanimous opinion by Judge Scirica today, the Third Circuit upheld the convictions of "Bridgegate" defendants Bill Baroni and...

Construction Lien Law's "Signatory-Requirement Amendments" Do Not Apply Retroactively

Diamond Beach, LLC v. March Associates, Inc., 457 N.J. Super. 265 (App. Div. 2018). Judge Fasciale's opinion in this construction case today dealt with a narrow issue projected by a...

Assignor's Loss of a Mortgage Note Does Not Preclude Foreclosure by an Assignee

Investors Bank v. Torres, 457 N.J. Super. 53 (App. Div. 2018). In this foreclosure case, the plaintiff bank was the assignee of a note that was secured by a mortgage....

At-Will Employee Cannot Bring Oppressed Shareholder Claim Based on Termination of Employment

Metro Commercial Management Services, Inc. v. Van Istendal, 457 N.J. Super. 66 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion, issued today, is the first published opinion authored by Judge Firko. It involves...

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc. Reissued by the Appellate Division

Flanzman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 456 N.J. Super. 613 (App. Div. 2018). The Appellate Division previously issued its opinion in this case, written by Judge Fasciale, on October 17, 2018,...

Equitable Adoption Doctrine Cannot be Used to Destroy Inheritance Rights

In re Estate of Douglas Castellano and Parentage of Gregory Bock, 456 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2018). This unusually captioned appeal presented a Chancery issue that was right up...

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 32 33 343536 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....