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

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: The School Ethics Act vs. The First Amendment

Tomorrow, October 29, judges on Part F will hear oral argument in Donnerstag v. Koenig. The appeal is from a decision of the School Ethics Commission. The case arose from...

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Is It a Design Defect for an Auto Manufacturer Not to Include Available Safety Technology in a Particular Model of Vehicle?

On Tuesday, October 22, judges on Part E will hear oral argument in Berkoski v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd. The briefing on that appeal, which has been taken from the...

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Can Sea Bright Seek to Withdraw From the Oceanport School District and Join a Different District?

On Tuesday, October 1, judges on Part F will hear oral argument in In the Matter of the Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a PK-12 All-Purpose Regional School...

Five New Supreme Court Grants of Review

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new appeals. Two of those entailed motions for leave to appeal, while the Court granted certification in the other...

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Did the State Act Ultra Vires in Exercising Supersession Authority to Take Over the City of Paterson Police Department?

On Tuesday, September 24, three judges sitting in Part D of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Bulur v. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. The...

Returning From the Break- Supreme Court Opinions

While this blog was on an early August break, the Supreme Court was busy, issuing five opinions. Here are summaries: Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. George Harms Construction...

The Past Week in the Appellate Division

Since last Friday, one week ago, the Appellate Division issued three published opinions (not counting its opinion in the Verizon case that the Supreme Court decided yesterday, in which the...

Judge Accurso is Assigned to Part C of the Appellate Division for a Short Time, and the Overall Parts Lineup is Rejiggered

Chief Justice Rabner announced that Judge Accurso has been assigned to the Appellate Division's Part C for the period of September 1, 2024-October 31, 2024. The relevant Order is here....

The 2024-25 General Assignment Order

The 2024-25 General Assignment has been issued and is available here. As was true in the 2023-24 Term, there are seven Parts. All but Part C, which has five judges,...

Judges Augostini, Bergman, Jacobs, and Torregrossa-O'Connor Are Again Temporarily Assigned to the Appellate Division

As discussed here, Judges Augostini, Bergman, Jacob, and Torregrossa-O'Connor were temporarily assigned to particular Parts of the Appellate Division for the period of March 25-May 19, 2024. Chief Justice Rabner...

1 2 3 4 567 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…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)....