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

From Judge Vernoia, a Discussion of "Opening the Door," The Rule of Completeness, and Lay Opinion Testimony

Grewal v. Greda, 463 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div. 2020). This far too belated post is about a very informative opinion by Judge Vernoia last week. The case was one...

The Third Circuit Opines, for the First Time, About "Overview Testimony"

United States v. Lacerda, 958 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2020). This lengthy opinion by Judge Porter affirmed a jury verdict convicting several defendants of mail fraud and wire fraud. Defendants...

When is an Ordinance a "Zoning Ordinance"?

Shipyard Associates, L.P. v. City of Hoboken, 242 N.J. 23 (2020). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represents the City of Hoboken and certain of its agencies and officials...

"Proliferate and Exceedingly Intimate" Text Messages Can Amount to a "Dating Relationship" That Supports Issuance of a Restraining Order

C.C. v. J.A.H., 463 N.J. Super. 419 (App. Div. 2020). The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C;25-17 et seq., allows the issuance of a restraining order for the protection...

A Third Circuit Ruling in Favor of Association Standing

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Inc. v. Mazda Motors of America, 957 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2020). In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977),...

Back in Action

The appellate courts have not been idle since the most recent post on this blog. Opinions have been issued, the Supreme Court has taken up more cases for review, and...

Forfeiture of Entire Public Pension Due to Guilty Plea of Accepting $300 Bribe is Not an Unconstitutional "Excessive Fine"

State v. Anderson, 463 N.J. Super. 168 (App. Div. 2020). Defendant, formerly employed by the Jersey City Tax Assessor's office, pled guilty to a federal criminal charge of interference with...

Insureds Bear the Burden of Proving "Fortuity" of a Claimed Loss Under an All-Risk Insurance Policy

Chartis Property Casualty Co. v. Inganamort, 953 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2020). Yesterday, the Third Circuit issued its first published opinion in nearly two weeks. The ruling, authored by Judge...

State Medicaid-Related Regulation Voided by the Appellate Division as Inconsistent With State Statute

G.C. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services, 463 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div. 2020). Appellate review of an administrative agency regulation "begins with a presumption that the [Regulation...

Third-Party Defendant Not Sued Directly by Plaintiff Must Still Participate at Trial Absent a Valid Defense to the Third-Party Claim

Mejia v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 241 N.J. 360 (2020). Today's opinion by Justice Fernandez-Vina, for a unanimous Supreme Court, involved "whether a third-party defendant, facing only claims for contribution and...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 252627 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....