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

Judge Sabatino to Deliver the Weintraub Lecture at Rutgers Law School- Newark

The Annual Chief Justice Joseph Weintraub Lecture at Rutgers Law School in Newark has long been one of the premier events in the New Jersey legal community. The Law School...

A Rare Appellate Division Published Opinion After a Grant of Reconsideration

State v. Morgan, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). As discussed here, the Appellate Division issued a published opinion in this case. As a reminder, that ruling addressed "a...

Returning From the Break- Appellate Division Opinions

During this blog's early August break, the Appellate Division issued three published opinions. Here are summaries: T.B. v. I.W., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This was an appeal...

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...

One More New Case for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in one more new case. The case is Brehme v. Irwin. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's...

The Second Half of April

In the second half of April, the Supreme Court issued one published opinion and the Appellate Division delivered four such rulings. Here are summaries: C.R. v. M.T., 248 N.J. 428...

Appeals From a Municipal Court to the Law Division Require a Hearing

State v. Jang, 478 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 2024). A party unhappy with a ruling by a Municipal Court may appeal to the Law Division for a trial de...

"Illusory Discounts" Violate the Consumer Fraud Act, But Private Plaintiffs Cannot Prevail

Robey v. SPARC Group, LLC, 256 N.J. 541 (2024). Today saw a relatively rare 4-3 decision from the Supreme Court. The majority consisted of Justice Solomon, the author of the...

The Entire Controversy Continues to Have Potency

Francavilla v. Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, 478 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Vanek wrote this opinion for the Appellate Division in this putative class action case. Her first...

"Compact" Ward Boundaries Under the Municipal Ward Law

Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission, 478 N.J. Super. 132 (App. Div. 2024). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, represents...

1 234…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....