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

Daubert Factors (But Not Daubert) Come to New Jersey

In re Accutane Litigation, 234 N.J.340 (2018). [Disclosure: I argued this appeal, together with co-counsel, on behalf of the plaintiffs. The opinions expressed in this post are mine alone, and...

ADA Class Action Plaintiffs Win on Standing, but Lose (For Now) on Class Certification

Mielo v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations, Inc., 897 F.3d 467 (3d Cir. 2018). This was an appeal under Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from a District...

The Federal Tort Claims Act Statute of Limitations

Sconiers v. United States, 896 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2018). Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §2401(b) ("FTCA"), a tort claim against the United States is "forever barred...

Motor Vehicle Commission Wrongly Sanctioned Car Dealers Without Holding Hearings

Allstars Auto Group, Inc. v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, 234 N.J. 150 (2018). The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission ("NJMVC") imposed fines and suspensions on eight car dealers for...

Class of Kia Vehicles Owners Was Entitled to Damages Based on Aggregate Figures Rather Than Individual Damage Assessments

Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 455 N.J. Super. 411 (App. Div. 2018). Class actions notoriously take a long time. But the case in which Judge Koblitz issued a decision...

Courts Find Attorneys' Fee Disputes "Hellish," Especially Where "The Adversaries Fan the Flames at Virtually Every Opportunity"

United States of America ex rel. Palmer v. C&D Technologies, Inc., 897 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2018). Today's opinion by Judge Greenberg (no relation) in a False Claims Act case...

The Third Circuit Clarifies CAFA's "Local Controversy Exception" on Unusual Facts

Walsh v. Defenders, Inc., 894 F.3d 583 (3d Cir. 2018). The "local controversy" exception to federal jurisdiction over putative class actions under the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,...

McCarrell Choice of Law Analysis Goes Against Legal Malpractice Plaintiff

MTK Food Services, Inc. v. Sirius America Ins. Co., 455 N.J. Super. 307 (App. Div. 2018). In McCarrell v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 227 N.J. 569 (2017), discussed here, the Supreme Court...

No "Dead End" for New Jersey Civil Rights Act Plaintiff, So Her NJCRA Claim Fails

Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake, 234 N.J. 317 (2018). The New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2 ("NJCRA") is, in general, the New Jersey analog to the...

In Rare Cases, Attorneys' Fees and Costs May be Awarded When Case is Voluntarily Dismissed With Prejudice

Carroll v. E One, Inc., 893 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2018). Near the start of his opinion in this case, Chief Judge Smith observed that "[a]ttorneys' fees and costs are...

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 33 34 353637 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....