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

The Breadth of Discovery in Legal Malpractice Cases

Marrero v. Feintuch, 418 N.J. Super. 48 (App. Div. 2011). Numerous cases say that in New Jersey state courts, pretrial discovery in civil cases is very broad. This case reiterates that principle...

Some Lessons About Motions for Reconsideration

Nead v. Union Cty. Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 2011 WL 166205 (App. Div. Jan. 20, 2011). This case, which resulted in a reversal of a trial court's decision to dismiss an employment discrimination case, teaches several things...

Affidavits of Merit Must, Unsurprisingly, be Sworn

Taylor v. Community Medical Center, 2011 WL 181370 (App. Div. Jan. 21, 2011). This was an appeal by a plaintiff in a medical malpractice matter. Her complaint was dismissed for...

The Uses of Unpublished Opinions

Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.D., 417 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2011). This lengthy opinion by Judge Messano focuses on what information counsel must provide to a defendant who...

Family Motions Should Go to the Judge Most Familiar With the Case

Resman v. Resman, 2010 WL 4940039 (App. Div. Dec. 7, 2010). In this case, which involved post-judgment motions in a matrimonial matter, the Presiding Family Part Judge had handled at...

Third Circuit Explains Twombly Pleading Standard

West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010). The standards for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under New Jersey's Rule 4:6-2(e) make...

The Rules are the Rules, Even When They Protect Wrongdoers

Kizima v. Bartone, 2010 WL 4721201 (App. Div. Nov. 23, 2010). This brief decision recounts that the plaintiffs had failed to respond to discovery, and the trial court dismissed their...

Never Attach Documents to a Brief!

Muracco v. Township of Washington, 2010 WL 5376867 (App. Div. Nov. 16, 2010). Courts have repeatedly made clear that documents cannot be attached to a brief, but must be appended...

Abuse of Discretion Standard

Lucante v. Lucante, 2010 WL 4570211 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2010). This opinion contains a lengthy discussion of the concept of abuse of discretion. There are a number of useful...

Shortcut Blocked

Washington Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555 (App. Div. 2010). Where two prior lawsuits between the parties were already finally concluded, and no case was...

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 37 38 394041…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....