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

Pennsylvania Rule Waiving Bar Exam Requirement for Admission Only for Attorneys Licensed in Jurisdictions That Offer Reciprocity to Pennsylvania Attorneys is Constitutional

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (NAAMP) v. Castille, 799 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2015). For many years, New Jersey has not offered "reciprocity" to allow attorneys licensed...

Homeowners Association Can be Liable for Injuries on Sidewalks Owned and Controlled by Such Associations

Qian v. Toll Brothers, Inc., 223 N.J. 124 (2015). In Luchejko v. City of Hoboken, 207 N.J. 191 (2011), discussed here, the Supreme Court ruled that a condominium association was...

What is an "Agenda"? Perhaps the Supreme Court Should Tell Us

Opderbeck v. Midland Park Bd. of Educ., 442 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 2015). The Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21 ("OPMA"), adopted in 1975, requires advance notice...

Physician Who Was Retired at the Time of "the Occurrence That is the Basis for the Action" is Not "Statutorily Authorized to Testify" as an Expert in a Medical Malpractice Case

Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015). The New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-37 to -42 ("PFA"), "established enhanced qualification...

Redd v. Bowman: The Supreme Court Says That the Faulkner Act Initiative Proponents Must Start All Over Again

Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87 (2015). In Redd v. Bowman, 433 N.J. Super. 178 (App. Div. 2013), discussed here, the Appellate Division held that an initiative petition with a...

An Unusual Lineup in the Supreme Court

Ross v. Lowitz, 222 N.J. 494 (2015). This case involved damage resulting from the migration of home heating oil from an underground storage tank on one property onto a neighboring...

Length of Marriage is Not Alone Dispositive as to Alimony

Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414 (2015). N.J.S.A. 2A:14-23(b) lists twelve factors, plus a "catch-all" thirteenth factor, that are to be considered in determining whether to award alimony. One of...

Debt Collector Has the Burden of Proving Its Right to Invoke an Exception to the FDCPA

Evankavitch v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 793 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 2015). "[A]bsent compelling reasons to the contrary, a party seeking shelter in an exception to the statute has the...

"Watchdog" Employees are Entitled to Full Protection Under CEPA

Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (2015). In 2013, the Appellate Division determined that so-called "watchdog" employees (that is, employees whose job it is to bring forward issues relating...

For Want of a Comma…. Qualified Immunity Protects Law Enforcement Officers Sued Under the Civil Rights Act

Morillo v. Monmouth County Sheriff's Officers, 222 N.J. 104 (2015). It has long been the case, especially under the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, that law enforcement officers...

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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 555657 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....