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

Mootness, and Some Useful Reminders

State v. Ross, 441 N.J. Super. 120 (App. Div. 2015). This characteristically concise opinion by Judge Fisher involved an order by the Law Division in this criminal case that granted...

Another Step Forward for Electronic Filing in the Appellate Division

Electronic filing in the New Jersey appellate courts has been on the way for several years. Previous steps toward that end were discussed here and here. Today, attorneys and firms...

When Does a Respondent or Appellee Need to File a Notice of Cross-Appeal?

Jennings v. Stephens, ___ U.S. ___ (2015). There is a settled principle that an appellate court may affirm on any basis, even if that basis was not relied on by the trial...

Supreme Court and Appellate Division Fees Will Increase on November 17

In a Notice to the Bar that was published today, the Supreme Court announced that a number of fees in various courts will increase as of November 17, 2014. Of...

Administrative Closure of Case Does Not Necessarily Trigger Time to Appeal

McGlynn v. State of New Jersey, 434 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 2014). This was a negligence and wrongful death case. Suit was brought against various defendants, including Jersey Central Power...

Personal Jurisdiction Goes Only So Far

Baanyan Software Services, Inc. v. Kuncha, 433 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 2013). Under Rule 4:4-4, New Jersey asserts personal jurisdiction over defendants to the outer limits of what due...

Ignorance of the Rules Does Not Constitute Excusable Neglect

Eastman v. First Data Corp., 736 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2013). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) permits the losing party on a motion to certify a class, whether plaintiff...

The Consumer Fraud Act in Condominium Construction Defect Litigation

Belmont Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Geibel, 432 N.J. Super. 52 (App. Div. 2013). This case resulted in another magnum opus by Judge Parrillo. Plaintiff sued over defective construction of a...

Three Procedural Appellate Practice Issues, Brought to You by the Third Circuit

Wiest v. Lynch, 701 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2013). This is a very interesting case brought under the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. §1514A, and Pennsylvania law. The Third Circuit,...

Another "Off-Premises Liability" Case

Nielsen v. Wal-Mart Store #2171, 429 N.J. Super. 251 (App. Div. 2013). Defendant Wal-Mart Store #2171 owned a unit in a multi-unit condominium development owned by another defendant. Plaintiff was an employee...

1 2 34…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....