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

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Is the Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act Invalid Due to Alleged Failure of the Legislature to Comply With Procedural Requirements in Enacting the Law?

On Monday, February 3, a panel of judges on Part A will hear oral argument in In re Application of Barbara Eames and William Eames Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 1:7-1 and N.J.S.A. 1:7-4 Seeking to Void L. 2021, c. 375. The cited statutes permit petitioners to seek the original jurisdiction of the Appellate Division....

One From "Column A" (the Supreme Court) and One From "Column B" (the Appellate Division)

In re Estate of Michael D. Jones, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As summarized here, this case involved whether an ex-spouse's rights as the pay-on-death beneficiary on her deceased ex-husband's U.S. savings bonds were superseded by the parties' divorce. The couple's divorce settlement agreement ("DSA") required, as relevant here, that the ex-husband ("Michael") pay the ex-wife ("Jeanine") $200,000 in installments over time. The DSA did not specifically provide for the disposition of savings bonds....

"Written Agreement" Versus "Written Arrangement" Under the Franchise Practices Act

N.A.R., Inc. v. Eastern Outdoor Furnishings A/K/A JC Partners, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This opinion by Judge Sabatino is an example of a party that "won the battle but lost the war." Defendant/third-party plaintiff Eastern Outdoor Furnishings ("Eastern Outdoor") asserted that third-party defendant AMD Direct, Inc. ("AMD") violated the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. ("NJFPA"), in terminating Eastern Outdoor's alleged franchise to sell AMD's products. The Law Division granted summary judgment to AMD, holding that there was no written agreement that established a franchise relationship....

The Supreme Court Says That Buck v. Henry Meant What It Said

Wiggins v. Hackensack Meridian Health, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This medical malpractice wrongful death appeal arose under the Affidavit of Merit ("AOM") statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26 et seq., and the Patients First Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41. Those statutes, whose history Justice Fasciale laid out in detail, require, in short, that a malpractice plaintiff provide an affidavit of merit from an expert who specializes in the same "specialty or subspecialty" as the defendant doctor if that doctor has a specialty....

January, So Far

With the coming of the new year, this blog went onto a new platform. That fact, along with a Supreme Court oral argument and a Committee on Character hearing last week, has left this blog behind as 2025 begins. Our appellate courts, however, have been active. Here are summaries of their January 2025 published opinions to date:...

Returning From the Break- Supreme Court Opinions

While this blog was on an early August break, the Supreme Court was busy, issuing five opinions. Here are summaries: Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. George Harms Construction...

Two Megan's Law Decisions by the Supreme Court

In the Matter of Registrant R.H., 258 N.J. 1 (2024); In the Matter of Registrant J.A., 258 N.J. 22 (2024). These decisions, both unanimous, were issued yesterday. Chief Justice Rabner...

Restraints Imposed in a Title 30 Action for Care and Supervision of Children Must End if the Case is Dismissed

New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. J.C., 257 N.J. 451 (2024). Justice Solomon's unanimous opinion for the Supreme Court today posed the question before the Court this...

This Week in the Supreme Court

It's the time of year when the Supreme Court gets into a higher gear when it comes to issuing opinions. The Court released three decisions this week, all of them...

Operator of Low-Speed Electric Scooter is Not a "Pedestrian" Entitled to Personal Injury Protection Under the No-Fault Act

Goyco v. Progressive Ins. Co., 257 N.J. 313 (2024). Plaintiff was hit by a car while he was operating a low-speed electric scooter ("LSES"), a Segway Ninebot KickScooter Max. As...

1 234…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....