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 at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  As the Supreme Court summarized it, the Appellate Division ruled that “an att

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

Main Street at Woolwich, LLC v. Ammons Supermarket, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App.  Div. 2017).  The Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which originated in two cases from the Supreme Court of the United States, holds that those who “petition the government [for] redress are generally immune from antitrust liability when defending against antitrust claims predicated on this petitioning activity.”  The immunity was thereafter expanded to cove