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

Last Week's Short Week: Not Short for the Appellate Division

While many took advantage of the fact that July 4 fell on Thursday of last week to close early on July 3 and/or remain closed on July 5, the Appellate...

Two Megan's Law Decisions by the Supreme Court

In the Matter of Registrant R.H., 258 N.J. 1 (2024); In the Matter of Registrant J.A., 258 N.J. 22 (2024). These decisions, both unanimous, were issued yesterday. Chief Justice Rabner...

Wrapping Up June

June came to a close last week. There were no Supreme Court decisions. The Appellate Division, however, issued five published opinions. Only one of them was discussed, here. Here are...

Waiver of Court Fees Based on Indigency

Mims v. City of Gloucester, 479 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Perez Friscia wrote the Appellate Division's opinion in this case. It deals with a subject not often...

One Supreme Court Ruling and One From the Appellate Division

In the latter part of last week, the Supreme Court issued its first ruling of the month of June. The Appellate Division came down with only its second published opinion...

Criminal Defendant Required to Make Restitution Cannot Dictate the Sequence in Which Victims Are Paid, and Cannot Seek to Extinguish Restitution Obligation if Victim(s) Cannot be Located

State v. Walker, 478 N.J. Super. 553 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Chase, the author of this opinion, aptly summarized the issue and the result in his opening paragraph. "The question...

Late Last Week ….

Toward the end of last week, the Supreme Court issued one opinion and the Appellate Division published rulings in two appeals. Here are summaries: Boyle v. Huff, 257 N.J. 468...

Restraints Imposed in a Title 30 Action for Care and Supervision of Children Must End if the Case is Dismissed

New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. J.C., 257 N.J. 451 (2024). Justice Solomon's unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court today posed the question before the Court this...

This Week in the Supreme Court

It's the time of year when the Supreme Court gets into a higher gear when it comes to issuing opinions. The Court released three decisions this week, all of them...

Cleaning Up From Last Week

Due in part to my attendance at the NJSBA Annual Meeting last week, this blog is somewhat behind on last week's published opinions by the Supreme Court and the Appellate...

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 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…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....