Blogs

Blogs

New Jersey Appellate Law Blog

Search our blog posts

Nov 22, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


An Anniversary in Rent Control

Currently, there is much litigation about rent control, including cases such as this one.  But the subject of rent control is not new.  Instead, in our state courts, it goes back at least as far as the immediate post-World War II era, as reflected by Jamoneau v. Harner, 16 N.J. 500 (1954), which was decided…

View Post »

Nov 21, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


The New Jersey Supreme Court Virtual Museum Has Been Launched

Under the aegis of the Supreme Court’s Historical Advisory Board, which Chief Justice Rabner formed last year, the judiciary has launched a virtual museum dedicated to the history of the Supreme Court.  The virtual museum can be accessed here. The museum includes a brief overview of the post-1948 Court, excerpts from the proceedings of the…

View Post »

Nov 17, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


Judge Fuentes Warns: When Seeking Dismissal With Prejudice as a Discovery Sanction, “Follow the Procedural Safeguards” of Rule 4:23-5

Thabo v. Z Transportation, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  Under Rule 4:23-5, failure to make discovery can, in certain circumstances, result in dismissal of a complaint with prejudice.  But Rule 4:23-5 contains “strict notice requirements”  that embody “due process protections,” as Judge Fuentes said in his opinion today in this appeal.  In this…

View Post »

Nov 16, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


To Resolve an Arbitrability Dispute, Cut the Complaint in Two, the Appellate Division Says

Greenbriar Oceanaire Community Ass’n, Inc. v. U.S. Home Corp., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017). …

View Post »

Nov 15, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


Two “Affirmed on the Opinion Below” Rulings From the Supreme Court

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court did what it does not often do: affirm a decision of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, rather than writing its own fully-expressed opinion. Yesterday’s ruling, in Granata v. Broderick, ___ N.J. ___ (2017), affirmed a decision by Judge Guadagno that was reported…

View Post »

Nov 14, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


The Smoke-Free Act Does Not Preempt A Municipal Ordinance Limiting Smoking in Retail Tobacco Establishments

Sparroween, LLC v. Township of West Caldwell, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  Plaintiffs operated the Cigar Emporium in West Caldwell.  In that business, they sell tobacco products, but they also make tobacco products available to be smoked on the premises.  After plaintiffs had obtained development approvals from the municipal Planning Board, the Township’s…

View Post »

Nov 14, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


The Supreme Court Will Decide an Administrative Law Standard of Review Issue and a Ruling Involving PIP Benefits

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new cases.  The first is In re William R. Hendrickson, Jr.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “What is the appropriate standard of appellate review of a final agency decision when the initial decision of the administrative…

View Post »

Nov 13, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


An Anniversary in New Jersey’s Law of Contracts

On this date in 1956, the Supreme Court decided Friedman v. Tappan Development Corp., 22 N.J. 523 (1956).  Like Newark Publishers’ Ass’n v. Newark Typographical Union, 26 N.J. 419 (1956), decided just one week earlier, Friedman was an opinion by Justice Heher that stated fundamental principles of contract law that continue to be cited today. …

View Post »

Nov 10, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


Which Appellate Deadlines Are Jurisdictional?

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, ___ U.S. ___ (2017).  In Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), the Supreme Court of the United States explained that an appeal filing deadline mandated by statute is jurisdictional, meaning that a late filing requires dismissal of the appeal.  But a time limit contained in a rule…

View Post »

Nov 1, 2017 by Bruce D. Greenberg


A Marijuana Case Likely Headed for the Supreme Court

Kadonsky v. Lee, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  In this appeal, plaintiff petitioned the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (“the Division”) to have marijuana rescheduled from a Schedule I Controlled Dangerous Substance to a Schedule IV or V substance.  The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, N.J.S.A. 24:21-1 to -56, which gives the Director…

View Post »
+ More Blog Posts