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

Both General and Special Benefits Must be Considering in Valuing "Just Compensation" for Takings

Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, 214 N.J. 384 (2013). Using the power of eminent domain, the Borough of Harvey Cedars took a portion of defendants' beachfront property (actually, the Borough took...

Another Big Win for the Hoboken Rent Board

Heyert v. Taddese, 431 N.J. Super. 388 (App. Div. 2013). [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represented the Hoboken Rent Leveling & Stabilization Board in this appeal and in the other...

Supreme Court Denies Review of Senatorial Election Dispute

This afternoon, the Supreme Court issued an Order denying plaintiffs' petition for certification in this election matter. As the Order notes, that disposition moots plaintiffs' request for emergent relief. The special...

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Says Mandatory Judicial Retirement at Age 70 is Not Unconstitutional

This blog previously posed the question "Is Mandatory Judicial Retirement at 70 Unconstitutional?" That was because some Pennsylvania judges had challenged that state's requirement that judges retire at age 70,...

Supreme Court Schedules Briefing on Senatorial Election Challenge

The Supreme Court has issued a schedule for briefing on the emergent appeal by parties challenging Governor Christie's scheduling of special elections to fill the United States Senate seat held by Senator Lautenberg...

Appellate Division Rejects Challenge to Special Senatorial Election Process

Having agreed to review on an emergent basis an attack on Governor Christie's decision to schedule a special primary in August and a general election in October to fill the...

A Jury, Not a Judge, Must Decide Contested Tort Claims Act Issue of Whether a Public Entity Exercised Discretionary Decisionmaking or Undertook a Mere Ministerial Act

Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority, 430 N.J. Super. 485 (App. Div. 2013). The key issue in this case, in which the opinion of the Appellate Division was written by Judge Fasciale, was...

Is Mandatory Judicial Retirement at 70 Unconstitutional?

Article VI, section 6, paragraph 3 of the New Jersey Constitution provides that Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the Superior Court "shall be retired upon attaining the...

New Jersey Law Firms May Now Use Some Trade Names

In re Letter Decision of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Docket No. 47-2007, 213 N.J. 171 (2013). New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct 7.5 requires that a law firm's name "include the...

A Smorgasbord, Courtesy of Judge Fisher: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Personal Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, and Service of Process

Tatham v. Tatham, 429 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2013). It is not often that a family law opinion touches on so many fundamental procedural issues. This opinion by Judge Fisher addresses...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 323334 35 36 37 38 39 40…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....