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

The Standard of Review for Final Certification in Fair Labor Standards Act Cases, and a Caution About Joint Appendices

Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores, Inc.., 691 F.3d 527 (3d Cir. 2012). This Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") decision, written by Judge Smith, rejects a collective action under the FLSA and...

Supreme Court Announces Rule Amendments to be Effective on September 1, 2012

The Supreme Court has approved amendments to a number of Court Rules. The amendments take effect on September 1, 2012. The changes to the appellate rules fall into four general...

N.J.S.A. 30:4-24.3 Does Not Allow a Developmentally Disabled Resident of a State Facility to Get Around Open Public Records Act Rules for Disclosure

Caliendo v. Velez, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2012). N.J.A.C. 10:41-3.2(b) is a Department of Human Services regulation that provides that incident reports prepared by the Division of Developmental...

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) Means What it Says: A Final Judgment on Less Than All Claims May be Entered Only if "There is No Just Reason for Delay"

Elliott v. Archdiocese of New York, 682 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2012). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that a district court may direct entry of a final judgment as to...

Electronic Filing is Coming! Electronic Filing is Coming! (In the Appellate Division)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey have each had electronic filing for a number of years. Now, the...

"The Song Remains the Same": There's No Automatic Right to Appeal an Interlocutory Order, and Improper Appeals Will be Dismissed

House of Fire Christian Church v. Clifton Bd. of Adj., 426 N.J. Super. 157 (App. Div. 2012). The Appellate Division has repeatedly admonished parties, attorneys, and trial level judges that it is improper to...

Discovery Masters

Zehl v. Elizabeth Bd. of Educ., 426 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2012). Rule 4:41 allows a court to appoint a discovery master to deal with discovery issues "only upon approval by...

Attorney Disqualified From Representing Party in Same Matter Where Attorney Previously Represented Adverse Party

Twenty-First Century Rail Corp. v. New Jersey Transit Corp., 210 N.J. 264 (2012). This case involved an effort to disqualify counsel in a construction case for a conflict of interest under Rule...

An Important Decision Under the Evidence Rules

Konop v. Rosen, 425 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2012). Trial lawyers and appellate lawyers take heed! The Appellate Division, speaking through an encyclopedic opinion by Judge Messano, has issued one of...

Relation Back and Other Statute of Limitations Issues

Walker v. Choudhary, 425 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 2012). This was a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. Three defendants, a doctor, a medical group, and a company that owns a...

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 32 333435 36 37 38 39 40 41…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....