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

Pleading Standards in Putative Class Actions in New Jersey State Courts

Baskin v. P.C. Richard & Son, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). [Disclosure: I am one of the counsel for the successful plaintiffs in this matter]. In this case, the Appellate...

A Landmark Civil Rights Opinion by Judge Ambro

Hassan v. City of New York, 804 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2015). This opinion by Judge Ambro yesterday is one of the most important decisions that the Third Circuit has...

OPRA Plaintiff Cannot Proceed Anonymously

A.A. v. Gramiccioni, 442 N.J. Super. 276 (App. Div. 2015). It is unusual for a plaintiff to be permitted to use only initials in filing a complaint. As Judge Simonelli...

Keeping Current With the Entire Controversy Doctrine

Ricketti v. Barry, 775 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2015). State court judges see a lot of New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine ("ECD"). Some federal judges, not so much. This opinion,...

With Ironies Abounding, the United States Supreme Court Rules on Removal Under CAFA

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, ___ U.S. ___ (2014). This case reached a fairly simple conclusion: a notice of removal that removes to federal court a putative...

Immunity for Actions of Hospital Internal Review Committees

Hurwitz v. AHS Hospital Corp., 438 N.J. Super. 269 (App. Div. 2014). The Healthcare Quality Improvement Act of 1986 ("HCQIA"), 42 U.S.C. §§11111-11112, creates an immunity from damages claims arising...

The "Continuing Tort" Doctrine

Wreden v. Township of Lafayette, 436 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 2014). As Judge Haas described it in this opinion, the "continuing tort doctrine, also known as the ‘continuing violation...

Two Interesting Wrinkles on Waiver (or Non-Waiver) of Issues Purportedly Not Raised Below

Thompson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network, 748 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2014). This opinion, issued today by Judge Vanaskie, is an important one in that it clarifies the pleading standards...

Choice of Law in the Insurance Context

DeMarco v. Stoddard, 434 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div. 2014). In P.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 197 N.J. 132 (2008), discussed here, the Supreme Court replaced the "governmental interest test" that had guided...

"Robotic" Treatment of Grandparent Visitation Cases in Family Part is Improper

R.K. v. D.L., Jr., 434 N.J. Super. 113 (App. Div. 2014). At least since Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics, 116 N.J. 739 (1989), it has been clear that motions to...

1 2 34…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)....