This page provides summaries of Supreme Court appeals, along with certain procedural information, due dates, and publicly filed briefs. The most recent cases are listed first. You can also use the search tool to find a specific case.
APPEALS ADDED IN THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT LISTED NEWEST TO OLDEST
Summaries for Informational Purposes Only: The following statements of issues on appeal are prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. They have been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity, some issues may not have been summarized.
Party Briefing and Case Documents: Briefing on appeals before the Supreme Court is governed by Court Rule. The Court’s order taking the appeal typically will include the due dates for the parties’ merits briefs and for amicus motions and briefs. The order is included in the “Case Document(s)” for each appeal. If the appeal is not sealed, the parties’ briefs also will be included in the “Case Document(s).”
Amicus Motions: Beginning on Feb. 10, 2026, motions for leave to appear as amicus curiae and proposed amicus briefs in Supreme Court appeals are due ten (10) days after the respondent files its merits brief, and motions to extend or relax the time for filing an amicus motion and brief will not be accepted. See R. 1:13-9(e).
|
A-27-22 James Meyers v. State Health Benefits Commission (087633) In this matter in which the State Health Benefits Commission ordered health care insurance premiums to be deducted from petitioner’s monthly retirement payment, did the Appellate Division err by failing to consider the issue of equitable estoppel?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-27-22-Part 1
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-27-22-Part 2
|
|
A-26-22 Leander Williams v. New Jersey State Parole Board (087613) Can the State Parole Board impose a special condition mandating participation in a residential treatment program if an inmate is entitled to administrative parole release under the Earn Your Way Out Act?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-26-22
|
|
A-25-22 Suzanne Cardali v. Michael Cardali (087340) What quantum of evidence, including evidence about intertwined finances, is required to make a prima facie showing of cohabitation in support of a motion to terminate alimony?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-25-22
|
|
A-24-22 C.V. v. Waterford Township Board of Education (087260) In this matter involving a sexual assault on a school bus, can plaintiffs maintain against defendants a gender-based claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-24-22
|
|
A-23-22 State v. Quintin D. Watson (087251) Was it harmless error to admit the police officer’s testimony that he consulted with another police department before filing criminal charges against defendant, did the officer’s testimony narrating a surveillance video deprive defendant of a fair trial, and was it plain error to allow the victim to identify defendant for the first time in-court during the trial when the victim previously had identified a different individual as the perpetrator during a photo array?
Note: The Court imposed a peremptory briefing schedule in this matter. Any motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae shall be served and filed, with the proposed amicus brief, on or before 2/9/23. Such filings shall be submitted to the Clerk’s Office through eCourts Supreme. For information about submitting an amicus filing, please call the Clerk’s Office at (609)815-2955. No further submissions shall be accepted unless requested by the Court.
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-23-22 Part-1
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-23-22 Part-2
|
|
A-22-22 State v. Stephen A. Zadroga (087156) Does double jeopardy require dismissal of the indictment with prejudice where the trial court declared a mistrial and found that the State acted in bad faith and engaged in inexcusable conduct?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-22-22
|
|
A-20-22 State v. Calvin Fair (086617) Is the portion of the terroristic threats statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), which criminalizes a threat to commit a crime of violence made “in reckless disregard of the risk of causing . . . terror,” unconstitutionally overbroad and did the jury instructions fail to ensure a unanimous verdict?
Note: This matter has been accelerated by order of the Court and a peremptory briefing schedule is imposed. Any motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae shall be served and filed, with the proposed amicus brief, on or before 12/22/22. Such filings shall be submitted to the Clerk’s Office through eCourts Supreme. For information about submitting an amicus filing, please call the Clerk’s Office at (609)815-2955. No further submissions shall be accepted unless requested by the Court.
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-20-22
|
|
A-17-22 State v. Jason M. O’Donnell (087023) Does N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2, which imposes criminal liability for “bribery in official and political matters,” apply to a candidate for political office who is not an incumbent and is ultimately not elected?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-17-22
|
|
A-14-22 State v. Roberson Burney (086966) Was the expert testimony regarding the coverage range of a cell phone tower admissible, and did one of the victim’s in-court identification of defendant, or the jury instructions associated with that identification, amount to reversible error?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-14-22
|
|
A-1-22 Carol Ann Conforti v. County of Ocean (086206) Were the Ocean County defendants entitled to immunity under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 to -6?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-1-22
|
|
A-66-21 State v. Thomas Zingis (087132) In a prosecution for a second driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense, what evidence is the State required to present to prove that a prior conviction for DWI was not based on Alcotest breath sample test results deemed inadmissible in State v. Cassidy, 235 N.J. 482 (2018)?
Note: The Court imposed a peremptory briefing schedule in this matter. Any motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae shall be served and filed, with the proposed amicus brief, on or before 12/1/23. For information about submitting an amicus filing, please call the Clerk’s Office at (609)815-2955. No further submissions shall be accepted unless requested by the Court.
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-66-21 Part-1
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-66-21 Part-2
|
|
A-55-21 State v. Dante C. Allen (086699) Did the investigating detective’s trial testimony narrating a surveillance video deprive defendant of a fair trial?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-55-21
|
|
A-20/21/22/23-21 Elizabeth Hrymoc v. Ethicon, Inc. (085547) Among other issues, in these product liability trials should defendants have been permitted to present evidence that they had obtained "Section 510(k) clearance" from the Food and Drug Administration for their pelvic mesh medical devices?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-20/21/22/23-21
|
|
A-63-20 Victoria Crisitello v. St. Theresa School (085213) In this matter concerning the termination of plaintiff, a teacher, was defendant entitled to summary judgment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the ministerial exception of the First Amendment?
Watch the
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-63-20
|
|
May an attorney, consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct, purchase from an internet search engine company a keyword that is a competitor lawyer’s name in order to display the purchasing lawyer’s own website in the search results when a person searches for the competitor lawyer by name?
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-61/62-19 Part 1 (11/10/2020)
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-61/62-19 Part 2 (11/10/2020)
Listen to the
Oral Argument Audio for
A-61/62-19 Part 1 (09/24/2024)
|
|
A-56-18 State v. Michael Olenowski (082253) Access prior opinion A-56-18, decided February 17, 2023, in which the Court adopted for criminal and quasi-criminal cases a non-exclusive, multi-factor test for the reliability of expert testimony patterned after the standard established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Is Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) evidence – which, in this case, included testimony that defendant was under the influence of narcotics while driving – admissible under the standard articulated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) ?
|