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

A Sidewalk Liability Case Involving a Vacant Church

Ellis v. Hilton United Methodist Church, 455 N.J. Super. 33 (App. Div. 2018). The opinion in this case, issued today, involved a slip and fall on a sidewalk that abutted...

Referring to a Party's Brief Instead of Offering Findings and Conclusions Draws Judge Fuentes's Ire

Estate of Doerfler v. Federal Ins. Co., 454 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2018). This opinion by Judge Fuentes today is one of the shortest published opinions of the Appellate...

No Cause of Action for "Negligent Identification as a Suspect"

Morris v. T.D. Bank, 454 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 2018). This case arose out of a robbery at a T.D. Bank in Union, New Jersey. Plaintiff, an African-American man,...

In Construing Wills and Trusts, "Plain Meaning" of Language Gives Way to "Testator's Probable Intent"

In re Trust of Violet Nelson, 454 N.J. Super. 151 (App. Div. 2018). As Judge Ostrer stated in his opinion in this case today, the issue was "whether a trial...

A Reminder About the Importance of the Appellate Appendix

White Glove Hospitality, LLC v. Stockton University, 2018 WL 1352589 (App. Div. March 16, 2018). Many seminars and articles about appellate practice focus on tips for writing better briefs or...

The New Jersey Arbitration Act Does Not Require That Arbitration Proceedings Be Conducted in Person

State Farm Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Hereford Ins. Co., 454 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2018). Following an auto accident, the two insurance company parties to this appeal had a...

State Agency's "Contumacious" Discovery Failures Over Many Years Called for Dismissal of Agency's License Suspension Proceeding

New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. E.L., 454 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 2018). Courts often give public entity parties more leeway in complying with rules, court orders,...

A Medical Malpractice Case Headed for the Supreme Court?

T.L. v. Goldberg, 453 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2018). The Appellate Division split 2-1 in this medical malpractice case. The issue was whether the defendant doctor's unexpected change in...

Allocation Among Multiple Defendants of Attorneys' Fees Under Fee-Shifting Statutes

Empower our Neighborhoods v. Guadagno, 453 N.J. Super. 565 (App. Div. 2018). This was an election case under the federal and New Jersey civil rights acts, both of which provide...

Fictitious Party ("John Doe") Pleading, and Deadlines to Seek Dismissal Based on Statute of Limitations

Baez v. Paulo, 453 N.J. Super. 422 (App. Div. 2018). This was a medical malpractice/wrongful death case. The Law Division had precluded plaintiff from adding three doctors as defendants after...

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 36 373839 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....