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

Supreme Court Announces Rule Amendments to be Effective on September 1, 2012

The Supreme Court has approved amendments to a number of Court Rules. The amendments take effect on September 1, 2012. The changes to the appellate rules fall into four general...

DePascale v. New Jersey: The Supreme Court Speaks

DePascale v. State of New Jersey, 211 N.J. 40 (2012). Article VI, section 6, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution states that "[t]he Justices of the Supreme Court and...

Appellate Practice Tips from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

A panel of three Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges offered their tips for appellate practitioners. Those perspectives are available here. Many of the tips are, or should be, familia...

No Surprise: Supreme Court Grants Review of In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing

In In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing, 424 N.J. Super. 410 (App. Div. 2012), the Appellate Division held that Governor Christie could not unilaterally...

Five Judges are Promoted to the Appellate Division

Effective August 1, 2012, Judges Allison E. Accurso, Michael A. Guadagno, Michael J. Haas, and Susan F. Maven will be promoted to the Appellate Division. Judge Richard S. Hoffman will...

Will Properly Admitted to Probate Even Though Decedent Didn't Sign It

In re Estate of Richard Ehrlich, 427 N.J. Super. 64 (App. Div. 2012). Richard Ehrlich, a trust and estates lawyer, died. The only purported will of his that could be found was...

A Rarity: A Published Appellate Division Opinion Issued Per Curiam

State v. Palma, 426 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 2012). Just as we do not often see a not-for-publication opinion signed by its author, it is not usual for an opinion issued...

Like it or Not, A Trial Level Judge Must Obey the Mandate of an Appellate Court

United States v. Kennedy, 682 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2012). In this decision, issued today and discussed here on a different subject, the Third Circuit sternly reprimanded a District of New Jersey...

Supreme Court Will Review State v. Morgan "Jury Homework" Case

In State v. Morgan, 423 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 2011), discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that it was not improper to permit jurors to take their written jury...

A Class Action Settlement Class is Reversed for Lack of Adequate Representation, But the Third Circuit Explains How to Cure the Problem

Dewey v. Volkswagen, A.G., 681 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2012). This class action case involved allegations that Volkswagen vehicles had defective sunroofs that allowed water to infiltrate into the interior of the...

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 35 363738 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)....