Due to an unusual amount of business travel (alas, only to three cold-weather locations) and a hefty appellate brief, I have not been able to keep up with the courts in recent weeks.  Here is a belated, and far from complete, summary of some of the decisions that our appellate courts have made in that time:

Ardan v. Board of Review, ___ N.J. ___ (2018).  In a relatively unusual (for the Supreme Court of New Jersey) 4-3 decision, the Court ruled that the Board of Review proper

Grimes v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrections, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  This appeal, decided today, had two unusual wrinkles, apart from its substantive outcome.  First, a pro se prisoner plaintiff prevailed over a government agency.  Second, a published opinion was issued per curiam, instead of being signed.  The panel consisted of Judges Messano, Suter, and Grall.

The issue revolved around a “calling policy,” applicable to a

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 of the Division power to add, delete, or reschedule controlled substances.  Plaintiff noted that when the Legislature passed th