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

Offers of Judgment and High-Low Agreements

Serico v. Rothberg, 448 N.J. Super. 604 (App. Div. 2017). In this medical malpractice case, plaintiff and defendant entered into a "high-low" agreement while awaiting a jury verdict. As Judge...

Whether a Child is Emancipated Requires Full Legal Analysis, and Findings and Conclusions

Ricci v. Ricci, 448 N.J. Super. 546 (App. Div. 2017). As Judge Lihotz observed in the opening sentence of her opinion for the Appellate Division in this case, Newburgh v....

The "Time of Application Rule" and the Definition of an "Application for Development" That Triggers That Rule

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj., 448 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2017). The Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL"), in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5, contains a "time of application...

Two Issues Under the Open Public Meetings Act

Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morell, 448 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 2017). As a public body, Kean University's Board of Trustees is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act,...

Jury Waiver and Fee Award to Defendant in CEPA Case Are Overturned

Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 2017). In Abbamont v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ., 238 N.J. Super. 603 (App. Div. 1990), aff'd, 138...

OPRA Requests Can be Requested Under OPRA

Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, 448 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2017). In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs each sent requests under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to...

A New Test for Statute of Limitations Choice of Law Decisions: Restatement Section 142

Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, 448 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2017). In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs each sent requests under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to...

A Clearly Articulated Statutory Immunity Applies, Even if it Seems Unfair

Kirkpatrick v. Hidden View Farm, 448 N.J. Super. 165 (App. Div. 2017). A boy who tagged along with his mother to a horse farm but did not himself take part...

Sovereign Immunity Prevails, But the State Police Still Lose

Royster v. New Jersey State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017). Today's decision is a unique one. Writing for the majority of five Justices (Justices LaVecchia, Patterson, Fernandez-Vina, Solomon, and Timpone),...

Alter Ego Theory Failed to Sustain Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent Corporation

FDASmart, Inc. v. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., 448 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 2016). Plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract against two defendants, Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals,...

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 42 43 44 454647 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…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....