NJ Appellate Law Blog

Supreme Court Will Decide on Retroactivity of W.J.A. v. D.A. Defamation Decision

In W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012), discussed here, the Supreme Court issued an important decision about presumed damages in defamation cases. Now, the Supreme Cout has granted review...

Justice Fernandez-Vina's Maiden Opinion

Hersh v. County of Morris, 217 N.J. 236 (2014). It is traditional for a new Justice's first opinion to be a unanimous, relatively uncontroversial one. Yesterday, Justice Fernandez-Vina issued his...

School District is Not Liable for Dog Attack on School Property on a Weekend

Robinson v. Vivirito, 217 N.J. 199 (2014). On her way to a diner on a Saturday, plaintiff Charlotte Robinson took a shortcut across a middle school property. As she crossed...

The New Jersey Wiretapping Act is Held Constitutional

Today's post is a guest post by Victor N. Metallo, MAE, MBA, JD, Adj. Professor of Business Law, Montclair State University In State v. Ates, 213 N.J. 389 (2014), the...

Supreme Court Will Review Redd v. Bowman

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has granted certification to review the decision in Redd v. Bowman, 433 N.J. Super. 178 (App. Div. 2013). The Appellate Division's decision is discussed...

Supreme Court Will Review Lippman v. Ethicon

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has granted certification to review Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 432 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 2013). The decision of the Appellate Division is discussed here. The...

The Supreme Court Speaks About Evidence Rule 404(b)

State v. Carlucci, 217 N.J. 129 (2014). This is another guest post by Jeffrey A. Shooman, who was then my colleague in the Appellate Practice Group of Lite DePalma Greenberg,...

The Supreme Court Grants COAH's Motion for an Extension of Time to Promulgate Third Round Rules

Today witnessed the latest event in the ongoing saga regarding third round rules for low and moderate-income housing to be adopted by the Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH"). As discussed...

No Nursing Home Act Violation, and Therefore No Consumer Fraud Act or TCCWNA Violation Either

Manahawkin Convalescent v. O'Neill, 217 N.J. 99 (2014). This comprehensive opinion by Justice Patterson for a unanimous Court ultimately boils down to this: because plaintiff, a nursing home, did not violate the...

The Supreme Court Stays the Appellate Division's COAH Mandate

As discussed here, on March 7, the Appellate Division directed the Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") to meet on an expedited basis and adopt third round rules regarding municipal shares of...

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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 767778 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102…Last

The Second and Third Published Appellate Division Decisions of the Current Term

As September turned to October, the Appellate Division issued its second and third published opinions of the Term. One was a decision by Judge Vinci in a civil appeal. The other ruling, in a criminal appeal, was authored by Judge Perez Friscia....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Did it Violate a Class Action Settlement That Barred Mass Opt-Outs to Allow Opt-Outs From a Marketing Campaign That Solicited Opt-outs?

On Tuesday, September 30, judges on Part G of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Esposito v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The case follows from a $100 million nationwide class action settlement that had required class members who decided to exclude themselves from the settlement and potentially pursue their own litigation against Verizon to opt out individually, and barred mass opt-outs. However, Murphy Advocates, LLC, a Colorado law firm conducted a marketing campaign to create a mass opt-out that attracted about 11,000 class members who responded to Murphy that they wished to opt out....

A Pair of New Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel....

Can a Plaintiff in a Civil Case Refuse to Testify at Trial After Being Served With a Defense Notice in Lieu of Subpoena and Having Been Ordered to Testify by the Trial Judge? An Anniversary

On this date in 2005, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005). The case involved a plaintiff who was shot in an apartment building in Atlantic City, which left him paralyzed. He brought a negligence suit against a number of defendants, including Atlantic City Housing & Urban Renewal Associates ("ACHURA"), the owner of the apartment building....