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

It's Now "Justice Pierre-Louis"

Yesterday, the full New Jersey Senate confirmed Fabiana Pierre-Louis to a seat as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. As was the case at the Judiciary Committee,...

"Assault and Battery" Exclusion Barred Insurance Coverage for Fatal Tavern Shooting

Pickett v. Moore's Lounge, 464 N.J. Super. 549 (App. Div. 2020). This was an insurance coverage case. Plaintiff's decedent was shot to death at the defendant tavern by another patron...

Judiciary Committee Unanimously Endorses Fabiana Pierre-Louis for the Supreme Court; Full Senate Vote is Thursday

After a 95-minute hearing today, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously endorsed the nomination of Fabiana Pierre-Louis as an Associate Justice on what she called, in her opening statement, "the finest...

Employer's Arbitration Provision Enforceable Even Though Employer Labeled it a "Training Module," Since Employee Understood She Was Agreeing to Arbitration

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., 244 N.J. 30 (2020). As discussed here, the Appellate Division in this case reversed a trial level ruling that compelled the plaintiff employee to arbitrate a...

Judges, Not Clerks, Must Perform Non-Delegable Judicial Functions

United States v. Heinrich, 971 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2020). In this appeal, defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the production of child pornography. He preserved the right, however,...

Municipal Collective Bargaining Agreement as to Health Insurance Premium Contribution Rates is Overridden by State Statute

In re Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ., 244 N.J. 1 (2020). The question in this case was whether health insurance premium contribution rates for members of the Ridgefield Park Education...

An Interesting Case About Interest

State by Commissioner of Transportation v. St. Mary's Church Gloucester, 464 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 2020). This appeal was about how to calculate interest on a portion of a...

A Dead Person Cannot Bring Suit

Repko v. Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center, Inc., 464 N.J. Super. 570 (App. Div. 2020). Judge Accurso's brief opinion in this case today addressed a "question [that] appears to...

"Good Cause" is Required to Amend a Complaint After a Scheduling Order Deadline for Amendment Has Passed

Premier Comp Solutions, LLC v. UPMC, 730 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2020). Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amendments to pleadings are liberally granted. But when...

Breaking News: Supreme Court Unanimously Upholds the Constitutionality of the COVID-19 Emergency Bond Act

New Jersey Republican State Committee v. Murphy, 243 N.J. 574 (2020). As discussed here, the Supreme Court directly certified a challenge to the recently adopted COVID-19 Emergency Bond Act. After...

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 41 424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159…Last

Retired Policeman's Pension Benefits Were Wrongly Paid to His Estranged Spouse Rather Than to His Estate, Where He Had Not Designated Anyone to Receive the Pension Benefit if He Died

Isaac v. Board of Trustees, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Two kinds of benefits are payable to retired members of the.Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS"). One is a pension benefit, a part of the member's compensation for past services. Pension benefits go to the person whom the member designates, or to the member's estate if no designation is made. The other is a survivor's benefit, which goes to the member's widow for the duration of his or her widowhood. Former Newark policeman Keith Isaac made no designation as to his pension benefits, though he did list his estranged wife, Roxanne, as his spouse when he filed for retirement. Based on that, Isaac's pension benefits were distributed to Roxanne. Isaac's estate contested that, and today the Supreme Court held that the estate should have gotten the pension monies....

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....