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

After a Lull, The Supreme Court Grants Review in Six Cases

It had been nearly one month, since January 18, 2019, since the Supreme Court last added cases to its docket. However, the Court has now announced grants of certification in...

The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority Cannot Condemn Land for Potential Use in the Indefinite Future

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Birnbaum, 458 N.J. Super. 173 (App. Div. 2019). On January 7, 2019, the Appellate Division decided Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman, 457 N.J. Super. 416...

The Two-Court Rule

In reading an unpublished Appellate Division decision recently, I learned about the "two-court rule." That rule, which dates back at least as far as a 1949 Supreme Court of the...

Fee for Filing Documents Electronically in a County Register's Office Was Not Authorized by Statute or Otherwise

New Jersey Land Title Association v. Rone, 458 N.J. Super. 120 (App. Div. 2019). May a County Register or Clerk charge a surcharge or convenience fee when a document is...

A New Test for Defining "Merchandise" Under the Consumer Fraud Act

All the Way Towing, LLC v. Bucks County International, Inc., 236 N.J. 431 (2019). Plaintiffs (an individual and his company, treated as one plaintiff here) purchased a customized tow truck...

Another Less-Than-Direct Way of Trying to Impose an Arbitration Scheme Fails

Skuse v. Pfizer, Inc., 457 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2019). Sometimes, the first sentence of a judicial opinion tells you all you need to know about the result, even...

"Confusing," "Contradictory," and "Obscure" Provision of Consumer Contract Claimed to Mandate Arbitration is Held Not to Do So

Kernahan v. Home Warranty Administrator of Florida, Inc., 236 N.J. 301 (2019). When the Supreme Court grants review based on a particular issue raised by the petitioner, but the petitioner...

When Can a Municipality or Local Redevelopment Agency Condemn Property as "Necessary for [a] Redevelopment Project"?

Borough of Glassboro v. Grossman, 457 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 2019). The Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 to -49 ("LRHL") allows municipalities or redevelopment agencies to acquire...

Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction

Reinig v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 912 F.3d 115 (3d Cir. 2018). This was the final published opinion of 2018 for the Third Circuit. Authored by Judge Vanaskie, the opinion reverses...

Receiver of a Defrauded Entity May Initiate Arbitration Even if Entity's Shareholders Will Ultimately Benefit From Any Recovery

Interactive Brokers, LLC v. Barry, 457 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2018). This final post of 2018 features an opinion issued today by Judge Currier. The case arose out of...

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 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....