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

Board of Education Lacked MLUL Standing Where Its Challenge to Development Approvals Was Based Only on Potential Increased Crowding of Schools

Edison Bd. of Educ. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Edison., 464 N.J. Super. 298 (2020). This opinion by Judge Messano today affirmed a Law Division ruing that the Edison...

New Jersey Arbitration Act Applies Automatically to Contracts Exempt From Federal Arbitration Act

Arafa v. Health Express Corp., 243 N.J. 147 (2020). Justice Fernandez-Vina's opinion today actually involved two consolidated cases, both of which were putative class actions. The issue was whether a...

Qualified Immunity Denied Based on Dispute About Material Facts

Baskin v. Martinez, 243 N.J. 112 (2020). This Civil Rights Act case involved what Justice Albin, writing for the four-Justice majority, labeled a claim that "a justifiable police chase ended...

Several Statutes and Common Law Permit an Assignee of a Mortgage Note That Was Lost by the Assignor to Enforce the Note

Investors Bank v. Torres, 243 N.J. 25 (2020). As discussed here, the Appellate Division, in an opinion reported at 457 N.J. Super. 53 (App. Div. 2018), affirmed a summary judgment...

As June Ends, Three Opinions From the Supreme Court

Unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, which customarily (though apparently not this year) issues all its opinions for the term by June 30, the Supreme Court of New...

Rooming House Operators Have No Statutory or Common Law Duty to Conduct Background Checks on Prospective Occupants in Order to Protect Other Occupants

Estate of Campagna v. Pleasant Point Properties, LLC, 464 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2020). This opinion is a magnum opus by Judge Sabatino. But he well summarized the ruling...

Determining "The Least Blameworthy of Two Competing Wrongs"

LVNV Funding, LLC v. DeAngelo, 464 N.J. Super. 103 (App. Div. 2020). What does a court do when each party is, for different reasons, in the wrong? That is the...

Making Up Ground

Due to a personal matter, there have been no posts on this blog since June 2. This post will summarize some of the decisions from our appellate courts since that...

The Supreme Court Reaffirms 66 East Allendale Rule for Determining Highest and Best Use in Condemnation Cases

Township of Manalapan v. Gentile, 242 N.J. 295 (2020). Justice Solomon wrote this opinion, issued today, for a unanimous Court. The question was whether, in this condemnation case, the Law...

Avis Budget Group Cannot Force Customers to Arbitrate

Bacon v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 959 F.3d 590 (3d Cir. 2020). Plaintiffs rented vehicles from defendant Payless Car Rental, Inc., a subsidiary of defendant Avis Budget Group, Inc. (together,...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 242526 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....