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

"Legal Gymnastics" and "Undisclosed Legerdemain" Do Not Help the Defendant in a Consumer Fraud Case

Dugan v. TGI Friday's, 2011 WL 5041391 (App. Div. Oct. 25, 2011). Plaintiff bought a beer at the bar of a TGI Friday's restaurant and was charged $2.00. She then moved...

A "Tense" Decision

Santos-Reyes v. United States, 660 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2011). Under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a), an alien who could otherwise be deported from the United States can have the deportation cancelled if the...

Sovereign Immunity, Though Not Raised Below, Wins the Day for the United States Government

Jacobson v. United States, 422 N.J. Super. 561 (App. Div. 2011). It is not often that the United States is a party in a state court case. This matter involved a claim...

Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution Averted, But Just Barely

Baskett v. Cheung, 422 N.J. Super. 377 (App. Div. 2011). The facts of this case, detailed in the opinion of Judge Harris for this appellate panel, were about as egregious as they come....

Calculating the Available Discovery Period

Jatczyszyn v. Marcal Paper Mills, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2011). The key issue in this case involves how to calculate the discovery period permitted by the Court Rules in a circumstance where...

Insurer Need Not Pay for Alleged "Diminution in Value" of Automobile After Accident and Full Repair, Where Insurance Policy Expressly Excluded Such Coverage

Kieffer v. High Point Ins. Co., 422 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2011). This matter involves three consolidated cases. In each, one or more insureds sued their auto insurer after their cars had been...

Deprivation of Deferred Retirement Benefits Due to Conviction of Crime May Occur Only When Offense Relates to Official Duties

In re Hess, 422 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 2011). Suzanne Hess was employed as a Geographic Information Specialist by the New Jersey Office of Information Technology. She filed an application for a...

League of Municipalities is Subject to Open Public Records Act

Fair Share Housing Center, Inc. v. New Jersey State League of Municipalities, 207 N.J. 489 (2011). The New Jersey State League of Municipalities ("the League") is an entity created under N.J.S.A. 40:48-22...

No Constitutional Right to Appeal Undocketed Grievance Against Attorney

O'Boyle v. District I Ethics Committee, 421 N.J. Super. 457 (App. Div. 2011). Judge Axelrad's opinion in this case begins as follows: "Rule 1:20-3(h) provides that in cases where a grievance that was...

Independent of AT&T v. Concepcion, Arbitration Clauses in Consumer Contract Are Ineffective If They Conflict With Each Other

NAACP of Camden County East v. Foulke Management Corp., 421 N.J. Super. 404 (App. Div. 2011). This consumer class action was the occasion for another typically scholarly opinion by Judge Sabatino. Geraldine...

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 76 77 787980 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....