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

Apparent Authority Must be Manifested by a Communication of the Principal, Not of the Agent

Gayles v. Sky Zone Trampoline Park, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Here is how Judge Messano began his opinion for the Appellate Division today: "Joan Tongol invited several...

Dismissals for Failure to Prosecute Cannot be With Prejudice

Estate of Semprevivo v. Lahham, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Judge Rose issued this opinion for the Appellate Division today. It "implicates the proper application and limitations of...

Pre-Marital Agreements, Mid-Marital Agreements, Property Settlement Agreements, and (Today's Case) Agreements in the Nature of a Mid-Marital Agreement

Steele v. McDonnell Steele, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Judge Enright's decision for the Appellate Division in this case today involved an appeal of the Family Part's enforcement...

A Huge "Asbestos in Talc" Jury Verdict is Reversed on Appeal

Lanzo v. Cypress Amax Minerals Co., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). This appeal arose out of plaintiffs' claim that plaintiff Steven Lanzo III had contracted mesothelioma from his...

A Summary Reversal in an Election Case

Board of Education of East Newark v. Harris, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Rule 2:8-3(b) allows the Appellate Division to decide appeals summarily without notice to the parties....

Employers are Obligated to Reimburse Employees for Medical Marijuana Treatment Reasonably Necessary to Treat Work-Related Injuries

Hager v. M&K Construction, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). As discussed here, the Appellate Division in this case affirmed the decision of a Workers Compensation judge that the defendant employer was...

Properly Dismissed From an MDL? Yes. Properly Dismissed With Prejudice? No.

Hamer v. Livanova Deustschland GMBH, ____ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2021). This appeal involved one of many cases comprising MDL 2816, which is venued in the United States District Court...

Attorneys' Fees Under the Common Law Right of Access

Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. Township of Neptune, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Prudent practitioners who file cases under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et...

Relief From Judgment Under Rule 4:50-1(f) in a Tax Sale Foreclosure Case

BV001 REO Blocker, LLC v. 53 West Somerset Properties, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Judge Ostrer's opinion in this case, issued today, may become the new "go-to"...

Incarceration is Not a Per Se Bar to Unemployment Benefits

Haley v. Board of Review, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). Here are the basic facts of this appeal as Justice Solomon summarized them in his opinion for the Court in this...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 192021 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....