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

Two New Supreme Court Cases: A Direct Certification and an Appeal as of Right

The Supreme Court announced today that two more cases have been added to its docket. In one of them, the Court granted direct certification and ordered an accelerated schedule. The...

The Georgia Supreme Court Will Resume In-Person Oral Arguments. Will New Jersey's Supreme Court Do the Same in the Fall?

The Supreme Court of Georgia announced yesterday that it will resume in-person oral arguments on June 9. The press release regarding this described how things will work: "Public health protocols...

The Anniversary of Ayers v. Jackson Tp.

On this date in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Ayers v. Jackson Tp., 106 N.J. 557 (1987). As Justice Stein said in his opinion for the 6-1majority (Justice Handler dissented...

A Huge "Asbestos in Talc" Jury Verdict is Reversed on Appeal

Lanzo v. Cypress Amax Minerals Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This appeal arose out of plaintiffs' claim that plaintiff Steven Lanzo III had contracted mesothelioma from his...

Virtual Grand Juries During the COVID-19 Pandemic Are Constitutional

State v. Vega-Larregui, 246 N.J. 94 (2021). The Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that virtual grand juries, a step occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic, are constitutional. The Court's opinion, written...

A Defamation Law Anniversary

On this date in 1982, the Supreme Court decided Kotlikoff v. Community News, 89 N.J. 62 (1982). Justice Clifford's opinion for a unanimous Court stated that the case "addresses an...

Provision of Car Dealer's Insurance Policy That Did Not Cover Loaner Car Driver Because She Had Her Own Minimum Required Insurance Was an Illegal Escape Clause

Huggins v. Aquilar, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). Rarely does a dissenting opinion in one case form the basis for a majority opinion (in fact, a unanimous opinion) in a subsequent...

A "Miranda Warnings" Case and a "New Business Rule" Case for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new cases. One of them implicates the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The other...

Employers are Obligated to Reimburse Employees for Medical Marijuana Treatment Reasonably Necessary to Treat Work-Related Injuries

Hager v. M&K Construction, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). As discussed here, the Appellate Division in this case affirmed the decision of a Workers Compensation judge that the defendant employer was...

Attorneys' Fees Under the Common Law Right of Access

Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Township of Neptune, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Prudent practitioners who file cases under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et...

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 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 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146…Last

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....

South Seaside Park Can Detach Itself From Berkeley Township

Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). South Seaside Park is a small (490 year-round residents) barrier island community that has been annexed to the Township of Berkeley ("the Township"). South Seaside Park sought to deannex itself from the Township and to be annexed instead to the Borough of Seaside Park. South Seaside Park followed a statutory petitioning procedure in doing so. The Township refused consent. South Seaside Park went to court and won a ruling from the Law Division that rejected the Township's refusal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed as well....

Megan's Law "Not Likely to Pose a Threat to the Safety of Others" Extends to Non-Sexual as Well as Sexual Re-Offenses

In re Registrant S.O., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal presented a pure legal issue relating to the "public safety prongs" contained in the termination provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and the Community Supervision for Life statute ("CSL"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c). Judge Vanek crystallized that "novel" issue as "whether, on a registrant's application to terminate Megan's Law and CSL obligations, the phrase ‘not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others' should be broadly interpreted with the trial court considering threats to safety from subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses or whether the inquiry should be limited to the threat of sexual re-offense only." The panel held that the broader view was the correct one....