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

A "Fund in Court" Anniversary

On this date in 1962, the Supreme Court decided Sarner v. Sarner, 38 N.J. 463 (1962). The Court's unanimous decision there, along with Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk, 33...

The Supreme Court Loads Up on New Appeals

The Supreme Court usually adds new appeals in relatively small groups. But its latest tranche of grants of review consists of eight new cases, implicating numerous different area of the...

Busy Days at the Third Circuit, Part 2

Yesterday's post noted that the Third Circuit has published a number of opinions in recent days. Here are summaries of some more of those opinions, all of which emanate from...

Third Circuit Roundup

Even as the Appellate Division wound down the number of its published opinions in the second half of August, the Third Circuit seemed to rev up its publication of opinions....

The Supreme Court Takes Up Five More Cases

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five more cases. In four of those matters, the Court granted certification. The fifth case will be before the...

22 Years Since Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management

On July 3, 1997, the Supreme Court decided Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management Corp. of America, 150 N.J. 255 (1997). Justice Handler's opinion in that case, for a 6-0 Court, is...

A Busy Day for the Appellate Division

On most days, the Appellate Division issues a significant number of opinions. But on many of those days, there are no published opinions among them, or only one or two...

Administrative agency actions Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds Subscribing to Policy PLH-0013397 v. Public Service Electric and Gas, 459 N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2019). Judge Fisher's opinion in this appeal today was barely...

Faxes That Are Not "Advertisements" Do Not Violate The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Even if Sent for a Commercial Purpose or Motivated by Profit

Mauthe, M.D., P.C. v. Optum Inc., 925 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2019). Plaintiff, a medical practice, received an unsolicited fax from defendants. Defendants maintain a database of healthcare providers, a...

An Unusual U.S. Supreme Court Lineup Rules Against Class Action Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants on a Removal Issue

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019). Among other changes made by the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453(b) ("CAFA") made it...

1 2 34…Last

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....

The "Castle Doctrine"

State v. Bragg, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). A jury found defendant guilty of twelve charged counts, including attempted murder, kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, endangering, and two lesser-included offenses of harassment. Some of those charges involved the use of deadly force. Persons may not use deadly force if the can retreat with complete safety. But under the "castle doctrine," an exception to the general rule, a person "is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor." N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i). That doctrine derives from the common law....

No Arbitrariness in Rejection of Public Construction Bid That Failed to Include a Properly Signed, Required Consent of Surety

In the Matter of Protest Filed by El Sol Contracting and Construction Corp., Contract T100.638, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This public bidding case resulted in a 5-2 split at the Supreme Court, the first non-unanimous ruling of the current Term. Justice Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Fasciale authored the dissent for himself and Justice Pierre-Louis....