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

The Seventh Circuit Rejects Carrera Ascertainability, and Cites Judge Fisher With Approval

Regular readers of this blog have seen frequent criticism of the class action "ascertainability" doctrine espoused by Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013). Recently, as discussed...

When Can Someone Become an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) on Appeal?

There are times when a non-party to a case would like to have his, her, or its views heard by an appellate court. A way to do that is to...

"Watchdog" Employees are Entitled to Full Protection Under CEPA

Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 222 N.J. 362 (2015). In 2013, the Appellate Division determined that so-called "watchdog" employees (that is, employees whose job it is to bring forward issues relating...

Land Use Litigant Cannot "Make a Mockery of the Exhaustion Doctrine"

Casser v. Knowlton Tp., 441 N.J. Super. 353 (App. Div. 2015). Two consolidated cases, three Law Division judges who had pieces of these matters, and a lengthy and convoluted procedural...

Mootness, and Some Useful Reminders

State v. Ross, 441 N.J. Super. 120 (App. Div. 2015). This characteristically concise opinion by Judge Fisher involved an order by the Law Division in this criminal case that granted...

"Trustworthiness" of Testimony Under a Hearsay Exception, and the Need for a Rule 104 Hearing

Estate of Grieco v. Schmidt, 440 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2015). Today's decision by Judge Fisher is another example of an appellate ruling involving hearsay rules. In this wrongful...

The Appellate Division Rejects Ascertainability as a Class Action Criterion, and Changes the Rules for Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification Decisions

Daniels v. Hollister Co., 440 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2015). Readers of this blog have gotten their fill (including, most recently, here and here) of discussion and analysis of...

For Want of a Transcript, An Appellate Issue is Forfeited

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P., 785 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2015). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 requires an appellant to "order … a...

Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Extend From One Party to Another Party Not in Privity

State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266 (2015). Two defendants who had been charged in the same indictment with many of the same crimes sought to suppress certain evidence. The Law...

Cheating on the Word Limit for Briefs? Your Appeal May be Dismissed

Lawyers, and their clients, often want to file longer appellate briefs than the rules allow, or than judges desire. When the length of appellate briefs was governed by page limits,...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 232425 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41…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....