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

"Cumulative Error" Results in Reversal of a Plaintiffs' Jury Verdict

Torres v. Pabon, 225 N.J. 167 (2016). As Justice Patterson explained in her decision today for a unanimous Supreme Court, "cumulative error" exists when "the aggregate effect of a series...

James v. Ruiz Leads to an Amended Model Civil Jury Charge

In James v. Ruiz, 440 N.J. Super. 45 (App. Div. 2015), discussed here, Judge Sabatino, who (in addition to his judicial duties) teaches evidence law at Rutgers-Camden Law School, addressed...

Qualified Immunity for Funeral Directors

Gately v. Hamilton Memorial Home, Inc., 442 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 2015). Apart from funeral directors, their attorneys, and a small number of judges, it's likely that few people...

Employee's Comparative Negligence in Workplace Accident Case Can be Submitted to the Jury

Fernandes v. DAR Development Corp., 222 N.J. 390 (2015). Kane v. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc., 278 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div.1994), aff'd o.b., 143 N.J. 141 (1996), ruled that the...

Debt Collector Has the Burden of Proving Its Right to Invoke an Exception to the FDCPA

Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 793 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2015). "[A]bsent compelling reasons to the contrary, a party seeking shelter in an exception to the statute has the...

IFPA Claims by Private Insurers are Subject to Trial by Jury

Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 222 N.J. 129 (2015). The Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 to-30 ("IFPA"), permits insurance companies to sue those who engage in insurance...

Remittitur, "Feel of the Case," and "Shocks the Conscience"

Mickens v. Misdom, 438 N.J. Super. 531 (App. Div. 2015). Today's opinion, by Judge Fisher, affirms the ruling of a Union County trial judge (apparently, Judge Hely, based on a...

A "Bright-Line Directive": Post-Verdict, Ex Parte Communications Between a Judge and Jury Are Always Forbidden

Davis v. Husain, 220 N.J. 270 (2014). "Post-verdict ex parte communication between the trial court and jurors cannot be countenanced." That is the holding of today's opinion, for a unanimous Supreme...

Deferring to the Factfinder's Credibility Determinations

New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. B.O., 438 N.J. Super. 373 (App. Div. 2014). Very few appeals are based on the argument that the finder of fact...

Collateral Estoppel, Law of the Case, and Some Evidence Issues

L.T. v. F.M., 438 N.J. Super. 76 (App. Div. 2014). This case began with plaintiff obtaining a final restraining order ("FRO") against defendant in the Family Part because defendant had...

1 2 34…Last

The Week Just Ending: Three Criminal Law Decisions

This week saw one case decided by the Supreme Court and two published opinions of the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court case, decided by a 6-1 vote, presented an ex post facto issue arising out of amendments to the statute governing parole. The two Appellate Division decisions entailed more "core" criminal law issues. Here are summaries of those cases:...

The 2025 Omnibus Court Rule Amendments and Other Changes

The Supreme Court announced amendments to Court Rules and appendices, as well as certain other procedural changes. That announcement is embodied in an Omnibus Rule Amendment Order that is available here....

"Abuse of Discretion" vs. "Patent and Gross Abuse of Discretion"

State v. Taylor, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), a part of the Graves Act, makes the use or possession of a firearm during the commission, attempted commission, or flight from the commission of certain designated offenses a sentencing factor that triggers the imposition of a mandatory term of imprisonment. A later-added section of the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, creates an "escape valve," under which a prosecutor may seek from the court a waiver of the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence where the prosecutor believes that such a sentence would not serve the interest of justice....

A "Swan Song" for a False Light Invasion of Privacy Claim on Statute of Limitations Grounds

Chipola v. Flannery, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As discussed here, this case was one of two that the Supreme Court agreed to review in its first grants of review of the current Term. The question presented was "Does a claim alleging false light invasion of privacy have a one-year statute of limitations, see Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div 2009)?" Today, agreeing with the Law Division and the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court answered "yes."...