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

An Appellate Pro Bono Win

Mastropole v. Giunta, 2012 N.J. Super. LEXIS 86 (App. Div. Jan. 15, 2013). This is a contract case that my colleague Marissa L. Quigley and I handled under the Appellate Division's...

Judges Ashrafi and Hayden are Reassigned

In separate Orders issued on January 4 and made public today, Chief Justice Rabner has reassigned Judge Ashrafi to Part G of the Appellate Division and Judge Hayden to Part...

Pro Se Litigants Have No Right to a Pro Se Manual, or to Other Assistance From the Courts

Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013). Plaintiff, a citizen of the Virgin Islands, refueled his powerboat at defendant's fueling station. The boat's tank overflowed with gasoline,...

Judge Shwartz is Renominated to the Third Circuit

Yesterday, President Obama resubmitted the nomination of Judge Shwartz for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, one of 33 judicial renominations (and one of seven Circuit Court renominations)...

Governor Christie Nominates Two to the Supreme Court

Governor Christie announced today that he was nominating Robert Hanna and Judge David Bauman to fill the two Supreme Court seats now occupied by temporarily-assigned judges of the Appellate Division....

In re Mathesius

As part of its constitutional duty to administer all courts in New Jersey, the Supreme Court sometimes finds it necessary to discipine judges. On this date in 2006, the Court...

A Milestone Date for Motions for Leave to Appeal

On this date in 1956, the Appellate Division decided Romano v. Maglio, 41 N.J. Super. 561 (App. Div. 1956). For 56 years, that opinion, written by Judge Clapp for himself...

Even Under New Jersey State Law, Standing Has Limits

Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co.., 2012 WL 3870323 (App. Div. Sept. 7, 2012). As discussed here, New Jersey has more liberal rules for standing to sue than do the...

Chief Justice Rabner Elevates Judges Rodriguez and Cuff to the Supreme Court

In an Order issued yesterday, Chief Justice Rabner announced the elevation of Judges Rodriguez and Cuff to the Supreme Court effective October 1, 2012. The Chief Justice acted pursuant to...

See the Appellate Division in Action in Cape May Today!

South Jerseyans, and those who are vacationing in Cape May and who either have gotten too much sun or just want to get a dose of appellate practice, can observe seven...

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 34 353637 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)....