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

City of Newark May Impose, and Need Not Negotiate Over, a COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for City Employees

In re City of Newark and Newark Police Superior Officers Ass'n, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, represents the City...

This Week in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued its first three opinions of the new Term this week. Here are summaries of those rulings: Bozzi v. City of Jersey City, ___ N.J. ___ (2021)....

An Adverse Inference Arising From Spoliation Cannot Arise in Order to Allow a Party to Prove a Claim Against a Non-Party to the Case

27-35 Jackson Avenue, LLC v. Samsung Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This opinion, issued today and authored by Judge Messano, is the...

Public Employees on Temporary Disability Must Still Contribute to State Health Benefit Costs Based on "Base Salary," Rather Than Based on Benefits Received

Grillo v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). In 2011, legislation ("Chapter 78") changed the way that State Health Benefits Plan ("SHBP") benefits were provided...

Catching Up Again, With the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division

After this post about the Supreme Court's busy August, that Court decided two more cases. Both were criminal appeals. Here are summaries: State v. Hannah, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). This...

Recreational Marijuana Use, Standing Alone, Cannot be the "Sole or Primary" Basis for Termination of Parental Rights Unless Use Endangers a Child

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. D.H., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This case comprised two related appeals. Two biological parents saw their parental rights...

Three From the Third Circuit

The Third Circuit issued three published opinions in one day earlier this week. Here are summaries: Dondero v. Lower Milford Tp., ___ F.4th ___ (3d Cir. 2021). Plaintiff filed a...

Two From the Appellate Division (Both by Judge Hoffman)

Kravitz v. Murphy, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021); Johnson v. McClellan, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). The Kravitz case, in which Judge Hoffman authored the panel's...

Two From the Supreme Court

Gilbert v. Stewart, ___ N.J. ___ (2021); H.C. Equities, L.P. v. County of Union, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). So far this week, the Supreme Court has issued two opinions, with...

When an Arbitrator Acts as a Settlement Mediator During the Arbitration

PAMI Realty, LLC v. Locations XIX, Inc., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This opinion, authored by Judge Gummer, laid out the facts, issues, and the panel's ruling in...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161718 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....