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

"Are Oral Arguments Worth Arguing About?"

Yesterday's New York Times contained a column by Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court of the United States, entitled "Are Oral Arguments Worth Arguing About?" That column makes the...

The Boundaries of Expert Opinion

State v. Locascio, 425 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 2012). Expert opinion is an area in which decisions in the criminal realm find their way into civil cases as well. For example, Kemp...

A Municipality Sues the DEP: Mandamus and Other Theories

Township of Neptune v. New Jersey Dep't of Environmental Protection, 425 N.J. Super. 422 (App. Div. 2012). The Township of Neptune sued the DEP in the Law Division for an order requiring...

An Important Decision Under the Evidence Rules

Konop v. Rosen, 425 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2012). Trial lawyers and appellate lawyers take heed! The Appellate Division, speaking through an encyclopedic opinion by Judge Messano, has issued one of...

Wikipedia in the Appellate Courts

A recent posting about citations to Wikipedia in the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals leads to the question of what the attitude is toward Wikipedia in the Supreme Court of...

"You Don't Have to be Jewish …" (A Law Against Discrimination Case)

Cowher v. Carson & Roberts, 425 N.J. Super. 285 (App. Div. 2012). Plaintiff Myron Cowher worked for a trucking company. His two supervisors persistently hurled anti-Semitic epithets at him, including (among many...

Front Pay

Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 425 N.J. Super. 335 (App. Div. 2012). This is a long-running employment discrimination case that came back to the Appellate Division after a remand by the Supreme Court....

If Your Employer Tells You That You "Have to Resign," And You Do Resign, You Have Not Left Your Job "Voluntarily"

Lord v. Board of Review, 425 N.J. Super. 187 (App. Div. 2012). Did an employee who accepted his employer's directive that he "had to resign" leave his job "voluntarily" so as to disqualify...

Relation Back and Other Statute of Limitations Issues

Walker v. Choudhary, 425 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 2012). This was a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. Three defendants, a doctor, a medical group, and a company that owns a...

"Justifiable Reliance" for Purposes of a Fraud Claim

Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc.., 425 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 2012). It is elemental that "justifiable reliance" on an allegedly fraudulent mispresentation is necessary to make out a fraud...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135136137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157…Last

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....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Where a Party Files a Suit Alleged to Violate the UPEPA But Quickly Dismisses It, Can Defendants Then Get Counsel Fees Under the Statute?

On May 15, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Satz v. Keshet Starr. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a defamation suit against defendants. Defendants filed an o order to show cause to dismiss the case and for attorneys' fees under the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49 et seq. ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA, enacted in 2023, sought to make it more difficult to use the legal system as a weapon to bully individuals into silence by filing what have been known as SLAPP ("strategic lawsuits against public participation") suits....