The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three more cases.  One of them is yet another case under the Open Public records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. (“OPRA”).  The two others are criminal cases.

The OPRA appeal is Ganzweig v. Lakewood Tp.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Is this police dash-cam video subject to disclosure under [OPRA]?”  In an unpublished 2-1 decision, the Appellate Division affirmed a Law Division decision that plaintiff was entitled to the video under OP

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, 231 N.J. 135 (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

In re Accutane Litig., 451 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2017).  [Disclosure:  I was one of the counsel who argued this appeal for the successful plaintiffs].  This must be Accutane week.  On Tuesday, Judge Fisher’s panel issued a 100-page opinion, discussed here, which reversed a decision of the Law Division under the New Jersey Produc