Each year, the American Bar Association nominates legal blogs for its “Blawg 100″ list.  If this were a post urging readers to nominate this blog, it would include a link to information as to how make such a nomination.  That link would be here.  But such a request would be blatantly self-promoting. read more

Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Benun, ___ N.J. ___ (2016).  A future advance mortgage, in broad outline, is a mortgage that secures a loan that is made in stages, rather than all at once.  This case called on the Supreme Court to decide whether and when such a mortgage has priority over an intervening lien.  The Appellate Division, in an opinion summarized briefly here, applied the common law rule that has been in effect since 1864 and was thereafter largely codified by statute.  That court reversed summary judgment for plaintiff, the first mortgagee.  The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that ruling in an opinion by Judge Cuff. read more

The Third Circuit has posted a “save the date” notice, available here, for a bench-bar conference next year.  The dates are April 19-21, 2017, and the venue will be Lancaster, PA, in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country.  This will be the 73rd Third Circuit Judicial Conference.  In addition to the chance to interact with judges, the conference will offer up to 12 hours of CLE credit. read more

Phibro Animal Health Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2016).  When it comes to whatever the judicial opinion equivalent is of “click-bait,” few if any court rulings can top Judge Sabatino’s opening sentence in his opinion for the Appellate Division in this case yesterday.  “This case is about insurance coverage and undersized broiler chickens.”  Who could resist reading further? read more

It was announced today that on July 25, a panel of the Appellate Division, consisting of Judges Guadagno and Vernoia, will sit at the Monmouth County Courthouse in Freehold.  The Appellate Division normally sits in Newark, Trenton, Morristown, and Hackensack.  But occasionally oral arguments are held elsewhere, in order to allow the public to watch arguments more locally.  Thus, in recent years, the Appellate Division has sat in New Brunswick and Mount Holly, in addition to the four usual locations. read more

In re Revocation or Suspension of Provisional Accreditation of Eastwick College LPN-to-RN Bridge Program, ___ N.J. ___ (2016).  As Justice Patterson reminded us in her opinion in this case today, an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations receives deference from reviewing courts unless the interpretation is “plainly unreasonable.”  Today, however, a unanimous Supreme Court found that the State Board of Nursing had adopted a plainly unreasonable interpretation of N.J.A.C. 13:37-1.3(c), which governs accreditation of new nursing programs and requires that full accreditation be denied unless “‘[s]eventy-five percent of [the program’s] students from the first or second graduating class,’ who take the licensing examination for registered nurses, ‘pass the examination the first time it is taken by the student.” read more

In re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various Municipalities, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2016).  It has been 41 years since the Supreme Court issued its original Mount Laurel opinion.  Southern Burlington Cty. NAACP v. Mount Laurel Tp., 67 N.J. 151 (1975) (discussed here).  Judge Fasciale’s opinion yesterday in the attached case offers a comprehensive history of the Mount Laurel doctrine, from that date through last year’s Supreme Court decision in In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 and 5:97 by the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, 221 N.J. 1 (2015).  There (as discussed in more detail here), the Supreme Court stripped the Council on Affordable Housing (“COAH”) of its power to determine municipalities’ fair share of low and moderate income housing and returned that power to the courts.  The attached case is the first published opinion to appear in the wake of the Court’s action. read more

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it has granted certification in Oxford Realty Group Cedar v. Travelers Excess & Surplus Lines Co.  The question presented, as framed by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Under the terms of this insurance policy, is plaintiff entitled to coverage for the cost of debris removal in addition to the $1 million that was paid for property damage after Hurricane Sandy caused plaintiff’s apartment complex to flood?” read more