to the arguments raised by appellant on appeal, a party may not parse through the opinion of a trial judge and take an appeal from words, sentences, or sections of the opinion that he or she finds “objectionable” when the party is not asserting that the order or judgment was made in error. See Arons v. N.J. Network, 342 N.J.Super. 168, 181, 775 A.2d 778 (App.Div.) (rejecting plaintiffs complaints concerning “the quality of the letter opinion provided by the trial court” because “appeals are taken from judgments, not opinions”), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 388, 788 A.2d 772 (2001). This rule is particularly apt in a case where, as here, the appellant is challenging dicta contained in the trial court’s opinion. See Glaser v. Downes, 126 N.J.Super. 10, 16, 312 A.2d 654 (App.Div.1973) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 513, 317 A.2d 726
holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration holding that statements that employee was doing a good job are more akin to opinions than statements of fact and on this basis are not actionable in fraud and citing a state case as holding that neither opinions nor statement that are general and indefinite are representations of fact giving rise to a misrepresentation claim holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone holding that unpublished opinions are of persuasive value at best and not precedential holding that appeals are taken from judgments and not from opinions let alone dicta