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

Rice Letters, and Making Meeting Minutes of Public Bodies "Promptly Available," Under the Open Public Meetings Act

Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morell, 233 N.J. 566 (2018). Yesterday's opinion by Justice LaVecchia reversed in part and affirmed as modified a decision of the Appellate Division that was...

"Time of Application" Rule for Development Kicks in When All Documents Required by Ordinance Are Submitted

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj., 233 N.J. 546 (2018). In a development application under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. ("MLUL"), the law...

Municipal Official Whose Appointment Was Ultra Vires and Void Must Disgorge the Pay He Received

City Council of the City of Orange v. Edwards, 455 N.J. Super. 261 (App. Div. 2018). Willis Edwards III, the subject of today's decision by Judge Currier, is a former...

No Attorneys' Fees for Retired Public Employee Who Successfully Sued to Enforce Agency Decision Regarding His Pension

Brunt v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement System, 455 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2018). In general, except as specified by statute, court rule, or a contract between...

Foreclosure Judgment Affirmed "In Spite of Certain Irregularities"

Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, 455 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2018). In the usual foreclosure case, the same entity owns both the note and the related mortgage. The facts...

The TCCWNA and Towing Companies

Pisack v. B&C Towing, Inc., 455 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 2018). This decision by Judge Gilson today in three consolidated appeals implicates the Predatory Towing Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 56:13-7...

Slightly Different Facts Produce Opposite Results in Two Somewhat Similar Cases

Bowser v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemens Retirement System, 455 N.J. Super. 165 (App. Div. 2018); Mattia v. Board of Trustees, Police and Firemens Retirement System, 455 N.J. Super....

Entire Controversy Doctrine Inapplicable to Teacher Tenure Charge

Yarborough v. State Operated School District of the City of Newark, 455 N.J. Super. 136 (App. Div. 2018). Plaintiff, a third-grade teacher in the Newark public schools, faced a conduct-unbecoming...

OPRA Requires Disclosure of the Names of Successful Bidders at Public Auctions of Government Property

Brennan v. Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, 233 N.J. 330 (2018). This opinion by Chief Justice Rabner, for a unanimous Supreme Court, addressed an issue that arose under the Open Public...

OPRA Requestor Rights are Not Limited to Citizens of New Jersey

Scheeler v. Atlantic County Municipal Joint Insurance Fund, 454 N.J. Super. 621 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion by Judge Reisner was yet another case (actually, consolidated cases, which reached different...

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 35 363738 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....