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

Judge Stern Retires

Last night, I attended the retirement dinner for Judge Stern, who turned 70 last week. Among the over 300 attendees were current and former Supreme Court Justices, sitting and retired...

Unwarranted Hysteria

State v. Timmendequas, 2011 WL 2326967 (App. Div. June 14, 2011). Talk radio personalities and others whose job it is to create controversy or to enhance the public's fears have...

When Can a Prevailing Defendant in a Fee-Shifting Case Where Some, But Not All, Claims Were Frivolous Get Attorneys' Fees?

Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205 (2011). The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, includes a fee-shifting provision, 42 U.S.C. §1988. Most often, it is a prevailing plaintiff who seeks...

"Law of the Case" Requires Appointed Counsel in Municipal Court for Defendant Whom Appellate Courts Had Found Was Indigent

State v. Mierzwa, 420 N.J. Super. 207 (App. Div. 2011). This case involved a municipal court matter that was first tried on July 27, 2006, nearly five years ago. On appeal from a conviction...

Two Lessons in Reading Title 39

Perrelli v. Pastorelle, 206 N.J. 193 (2011); Voss v. Tranquilino, 206 N.J. 93 (2011). Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided two cases involving two different sub-sections of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5. Both cases...

The Route 280 Case

In re Route 280 Contract, 89 N.J. 1 (1982), is frequently cited in connection with the standards for a grant of certification or a decision to vacate certification. But few have occasion...

Dismissal for Failure to Provide Discovery is Interlocutory and, Thus, Not Immediately Appealable

Ott v. Guardian Protective Services, Inc.., 2011 WL 2297783 (App. Div. May 24, 2011). Final orders are immediately appealable, while interlocutory orders, which do not conclusively resolve all issues as to all parties, are interlocutory...

Abbott v. Burke XXI (or is it XXII?)- Lots of Appellate Practice Issues

Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332 (2011). The merits of this latest decision on the funding necessary to satisfy the mandate of article VIII, section 4, paragraph 1 of the New...

A Poor Judicial Product and a Disaster for Consumer Protection: A Lengthy Analysis of AT&T v. Concepcion

AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011). From the same people who brought us the outrageous 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S....

Justice Alito Addresses the Third Circuit Judicial Conference

The 70th Third Circuit Judicial Conference began last night in Philadelphia. Those of us in attendance were treated to an interesting keynote address by the Third Circuit's (and New Jersey's)...

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 37 38 39 40 414243 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)....