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

"The Song Remains the Same": There's No Automatic Right to Appeal an Interlocutory Order, and Improper Appeals Will be Dismissed

House of Fire Christian Church v. Clifton Bd. of Adj., 426 N.J. Super. 157 (App. Div. 2012). The Appellate Division has repeatedly admonished parties, attorneys, and trial level judges that it is improper to...

Discovery Masters

Zehl v. Elizabeth Bd. of Educ., 426 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2012). Rule 4:41 allows a court to appoint a discovery master to deal with discovery issues "only upon approval by...

A Perplexing Exercise in Interpreting an Administrative Regulation

US Bank, N.A. v. Hough, 210 N.J. 187 (2012). There seems to be infinite room for judges, or Justices, to disagree about how to interpret statutes or regulations. Sometimes, there are differences even...

Three Appellate Practice Nuggets from the NJSBA Annual Meeting

The NJSBA Annual Meeting in Atlantic City featured a program today on the "nuts and bolts" of appellate practice. The panel of speakers was headed by Judges Carchman and Messano....

Wikipedia in the Appellate Courts

A recent posting about citations to Wikipedia in the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals leads to the question of what the attitude is toward Wikipedia in the Supreme Court of...

Valuable Insights From Appellate Division Judges

Last night's meeting of the NJSBA's Appellate Practice Committee, of which I am a member and a past Chair, was a roundtable discussion with six distinguished Appellate Division judges. The...

The U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up the Health Care Law- Day 2

Today was the day that the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument about the "individual mandate." That is the provision that requires everyone to have health insurance....

DePascale v. New Jersey (Judges' Pension Case) Argued

The oral argument in the Supreme Court of the United States today about the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a "Obamacare," has drawn so much attention that it has overshadowed the nearly...

A Welding Business is a "Home Occupation" Under a Broad Ordinance

Columbro v. Lebanon Tp. Bd. of Adj.., 424 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2012). Defendants Michael and Frances Edwards obtained a conditional use variance that allowed them to conduct a welding business in...

Seton Hall Law School Women's Law Forum Honors Judge Wefing

Tonight, I was privileged to attend an event at which the Seton Hall Law School's Women's Law Forum honored Judge Wefing with its "Women of Substance" award. Approximately 150 people...

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 36 373839 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)....