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

The Supreme Court Takes Up Accutane Appeals and an Evidence Matter

The Supreme Court announced late last Friday that it has granted review in three more cases. Two of those cases involve the long-running Accutane Multi-County Litigation, which the Court has...

No Liability Expert Needed for Plaintiff Injured by Stepping Into Hole Negligently Left by Utility Employee

Jacobs v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 452 N.J. Super. 494 (App. Div. 2017). This opinion by Judge Sabatino today is an abbreviated version of a longer opinion that...

The Third Circuit Overrules a Precedent "On an Important Question of Maritime Law"

Joyce v. Maersk Line Ltd., 876 F.3d 502 (3d Cir. 2017). Today's decision by Judge Jordan for a unanimous en banc court began with a pun and continued as follows:...

Judge Fuentes Warns: When Seeking Dismissal With Prejudice as a Discovery Sanction, "Follow the Procedural Safeguards" of Rule 4:23-5

Thabo v. Z Transportation, 452 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2017). Under Rule 4:23-5, failure to make discovery can, in certain circumstances, result in dismissal of a complaint with prejudice....

The Supreme Court Will Decide an Administrative Law Standard of Review Issue and a Ruling Involving PIP Benefits

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in two new cases. The first is In re William R. Hendrickson, Jr. The question presented there, as phrased by the...

The Smoke-Free Act Does Not Preempt A Municipal Ordinance Limiting Smoking in Retail Tobacco Establishments

Sparroween, LLC v. Township of West Caldwell, 452 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 2017). Plaintiffs operated the Cigar Emporium in West Caldwell. In that business, they sell tobacco products, but...

More Than an Eyedropper's Worth of Analysis of Standing

Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories, 874 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2017). Eye drops can be helpful to many people, but putting drops in one's eyes is unpleasant at many levels. One...

Health Club Membership Agreements Are Not Retail Installment Sales Contracts

Mellet v. Aquasid, LLC, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017). The decision in this consumer protection case was issued in June as an unpublished opinion. Defendant then asked the...

A "Layered Choice-of-Law" Appeal Involving a Forum Selection Clause

Collins v. Mary Kay, Inc., 874 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2017). This opinion of the Third Circuit today, written by Judge Restrepo, answers what he called "a layered choice-of-law question:...

One Win for Plaintiffs and One for Defendants in Companion Class Certification Cases Today

Dugan v. TGI Friday's, Inc., 231 N.J. 24 (2017). In these two closely-watched consumer class action decisions, each of which involved claims regarding defendants' alleged failure to disclose the price...

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 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....