NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

Two by Judge Accurso: The First Two Published Opinions of the New Term

State v. Alvarez, 473 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2022); State v. Chau, 473 N.J. Super. 430 (App. Div. 2022). These two opinions, issued today, were both authored by Judge...

The Supreme Court Overrules New Jersey's "New Business" Rule That Barred New Businesses From Seeking Lost Profits Damages

Schwartz v. Menas, 251 N.J. 556 (2022). [Disclosure: I argued this case for the successful plaintiffs, having handled the appeal along with co-counsel, Giovanni DePierro of DePierro Radding]. In 1936,...

Insurance Policy Exclusion Was Clear and Did Not Require a Causal Relationship

Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 251 N.J. 538 (2022). This case arose out of an injury to an employee of Home Depot in Nassau County, New York while...

An Arbitration Award That Was Procured by Fraud is Undone by the Third Circuit

France v. Bernstein, 43 F.4th 367 (3d Cir. 2022). As Judge Jordan said in his opinion for the Third Circuit today, "[i]t's a steep climb to vacate an arbitration award."...

The First Week of August

The dog days of summer often see the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division issuing opinions in cases argued earlier in the Term. The Third Circuit is often more active...

An Opinion About Stays From Judge Accurso

In re New Jersey Transit Award of Contracts No. 21-048A and 21-048B, 473 N.J. Super. 261 (App. Div. 2022). Published opinions from appellate courts about stays are relatively rare. Today,...

Tolling of Statute of Limitations for Claims by Minors Does Not Apply to Minors Who Have Died, and on Whose Behalf a Wrongful Death Case is Brought

Monk v. Kennedy University Hospital, Inc., 473 N.J. Super. 178 (App. Div. 2022). This opinion today by Judge Berdote Byrne is, I believe, her first published decision for the Appellate...

Two by Justice Albin

Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., 251 N.J. 300 (2022); Linden Democratic Committee v. City of Linden, 251 N.J. 415 (2022). As Justice Albin's tenure on the Supreme Court nears...

A Class Certification Opinion by Judge Porter, With a Concurring Opinion by … Judge Porter

Allen v. Ollie's Bargain Store, Inc., 37 F.4th 890 (3d Cir. 2022). This blog has reported on several Third Circuit cases in which a unanimous panel opinion was accompanied by...

Parties That Behaved Wrongfully Could Not Demand Marketability Discount in Shareholder Buyout Case

Sipko v. Koger, Inc., ___ N.J. ___ (2022). This is the second time that this intra-family business divorce case came before the Supreme Court. The first iteration, which dates back...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82…Last

The Last Seven Days

The last seven days, an especially busy period for me, featured one Supreme Court opinion and two published Appellate Division decisions. Here are summaries of those rulings:...

No Ethics Violation in Attorney Purchasing Another Attorney's Name as a Keyword for Internet Searches, the Supreme Court Says, With a Caveat

In re Opinion No. 735 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). [Disclosure: I represented an amicus curiae in this appeal]. As Justice Noriega said in his opinion for a 5-1 majority (Justice Pierre-Louis did not participate), this appeal "presents the narrow question of whether it is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) for an attorney or law firm to purchase a competing attorney's or law firm's name as a keyword." The Court found it permissible, with a caveat. Justice Fasciale dissented....

Four Criminal Law Cases, and a Qui Tam Appeal, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification....

The "Limited Attorney Exemption" of the Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act is Held Unconstitutional as Violative of the Separation of Powers and Void for Vagueness

Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....