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

A Filed Rate Doctrine Anniversary

On this date in 2004, the Supreme Court decided Smith v. SBC Communications, Inc., 178 N.J. 265 (2004). The case was a putative Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") and breach of contract class action against Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") and BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. Plaintiff alleged that defendants falsely advertised that prepaid calling cards purchased at BJ's would yield substantially more calling time than plaintiff actually received....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Is a Court Order Requiring a Party to Produce All Electronically Stored Information Responsive to Discovery Requests, Without Allowing the Party to Revie

On Wednesday, January 22, a panel of Part E will hear oral argument in Atlantic ER Physicians Team Pediatrics Associates, P.A. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. The issue is one involving discovery of electronically stored information ("ESI"). In the 21st century, ESI has become a fixture in complex litigation, and sometimes in non-complex cases as well....

A Supreme Court Civil Opinion About Appealability, and an Appellate Division Criminal Decision About a Deported Defendant's Failure to Appear at a Pretrial Conference

Brehme v. Irwin, 259 N.J.505 (2025). One might intuitively think that a plaintiff who accepts full payment of a civil judgment for damages from an auto accident including pain and suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, and past lost wages, and signs a warrant to satisfy judgment cannot then an appeal a ruling on a motion in limine that barred evidence of future medical expenses....

January, So Far

With the coming of the new year, this blog went onto a new platform. That fact, along with a Supreme Court oral argument and a Committee on Character hearing last week, has left this blog behind as 2025 begins. Our appellate courts, however, have been active. Here are summaries of their January 2025 published opinions to date:...

The Days Before Christmas

No one can say that in the days before Christmas, "not a creature was stirring" in our appellate courts. The Supreme Court issued one decision and the Appellate Division published...

The Supreme Court Will Review Four Unpublished Appellate Division Decisions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in four new matters. All of those involve unpublished opinions of the Appellate Division. In State v. Taylor, the question presented...

One From the Supreme Court and One From the Appellate Division

Rodriguez v. Shelbourne Spring, LLC, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). The first signed opinion of the current Term was by Justice Fasciale. The Court addressed issues relating to whether Hartford Underwriters...

Court-Appointed Attorney and Temporary Guardian in "Alleged Incapacitated Person" Case Under Rule 4:86 Have No Right to Fees Against Office of Adult Protective Services

In the Matter of A.D., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). This case was an appeal from a decision of the Appellate Division, discussed here, that the Office...

An Anniversary in Administrative Law

On December 4, 1973, the Supreme Court decided Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Securities, 64 N.J. 85 (1973). The Bureau of Securities had suspended the registration of Mayflower, a...

As November Ends …

Filings in the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court in the last few days interfered with blogging about three published opinions that the Appellate Division issued during that time. Here...

1 2 3 456 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 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…Last

A Municipal Court Administrator is Employed by the Township, Not the Administrative Office of the Courts

Palmisano v. State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The opening paragraph of Judge Marczyk's opinion for the Appellate Division well encapsulates what the appeal was about and what the result was. "Plaintiff Lindsay Palmisano appeals from the trial court's April 1, 2024 order dismissing her complaint with prejudice against defendant State of New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts and Municipal Division (AOC) pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, a municipal court administrator, is an employee of the AOC, thereby allowing her to assert a claim against the AOC under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49. Based on our review of the record and the applicable legal principles, we conclude plaintiff was employed by Vernon Township (Township), not the AOC, and, therefore, we affirm."...

Supreme Court to Take Up Two Published Appellate Division Opinions

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new appeals. One is before the Court on leave to appeal. The Court granted certification in the other matter....

South Seaside Park Can Detach Itself From Berkeley Township

Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). South Seaside Park is a small (490 year-round residents) barrier island community that has been annexed to the Township of Berkeley ("the Township"). South Seaside Park sought to deannex itself from the Township and to be annexed instead to the Borough of Seaside Park. South Seaside Park followed a statutory petitioning procedure in doing so. The Township refused consent. South Seaside Park went to court and won a ruling from the Law Division that rejected the Township's refusal. The Appellate Division affirmed. Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Supreme Court affirmed as well....

Megan's Law "Not Likely to Pose a Threat to the Safety of Others" Extends to Non-Sexual as Well as Sexual Re-Offenses

In re Registrant S.O., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This appeal presented a pure legal issue relating to the "public safety prongs" contained in the termination provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and the Community Supervision for Life statute ("CSL"), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c). Judge Vanek crystallized that "novel" issue as "whether, on a registrant's application to terminate Megan's Law and CSL obligations, the phrase ‘not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others' should be broadly interpreted with the trial court considering threats to safety from subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses or whether the inquiry should be limited to the threat of sexual re-offense only." The panel held that the broader view was the correct one....