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

Seatbelt Law is Intended to Protect Public Health and Safety and Can be Used as a Predicate for Conviction of a Serious Crime

State v. Lenihan, 427 N.J. Super. 499 (App. Div. 2012). Would it not seem "obvious" that N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2f, New Jersey's "seatbelt law," is intended to protect the public health and...

No Emotional Distress Damages for Witnessing Death of Pet

McDougall v. Lamm, 211 N.J. 203 (2012). In Portee v. Jaffee, 84 N.J. 88 (1980), the Supreme Court established limited circumstances under which a person who observes the negligently-caused death...

DePascale v. New Jersey: The Supreme Court Speaks

DePascale v. State of New Jersey, 211 N.J. 40 (2012). Article VI, section 6, paragraph 6 of the New Jersey Constitution states that "[t]he Justices of the Supreme Court and...

Foreign Citizen Whose Admission to the United States Limits Him to a Single Employer is Not "Available for Work" and Eligible for Unemployment Benefits When That Employer Discharges Him

Makutoff v. Board of Review, 427 N.J. Super. 218 (App. Div. 2012). Plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, was employed in this country under a limited work authorization issued by the Department...

Sales Taxes Under the Bankruptcy Code: A Fascinating, and Difficult, Issue of Statutory Interpretation

In re Michael Calabrese, Jr., 689 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2012). Most issues of statutory interpretation can be resolved either by the plain language of the statute, by an analysis of...

Mass Tort Defendants May Retain as Experts Doctors Who Treated Patient-Plaintiffs, But Those Doctors Cannot be Involved in the Cases of Those Same Patient-Plaintiffs

In re Pelvic Mesh-Gynecare Litig., 426 N.J. Super. 167 (App. Div. 2012). In this mass tort matter involving medical devices that are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, the...

Wrongful Death Act Claim for Estate Tax Impact of Premature Death May Go Forward

Beim v. Hulfish, 427 N.J. Super. 560 (App. Div. 2012). The first paragraph of this very interesting opinion by Judge Harris, in an auto accident case, well encapsulates the novel issue presented:...

"Presumed Damages" Doctrine Remains Viable in Defamation Cases Involving Purely Private Plaintiffs

W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012) (later-issued corrected opinion appears here). The doctrine of "presumed damages" allows plaintiffs in defamation cases to obtain damages even without a showing of actual harm...

An Important Decision Under the Evidence Rules

Konop v. Rosen, 425 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div. 2012). Trial lawyers and appellate lawyers take heed! The Appellate Division, speaking through an encyclopedic opinion by Judge Messano, has issued one of...

Shareholder Challenge to Merger Transaction is Defeated

Scheidt v. DRS Technologies, Inc.., 424 N.J. Super. 188 (App. Div. 2012). Plaintiff, a shareholder in defendant DRS Technologies, Inc. ("DRS"), sued the company, its Board of Directors and its General Counsel...

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 39 40 414243 44 45…Last

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....

"Hot Fun in the Summertime": Appellate Division Summer Parts

In an Order available here, Chief Justice Rabner announced the lineup for the Appellate Division's summer Parts. As has been customary, the "summer" runs not between the meteorological start and end dates for summer, nor from Memorial Day to Labor Day, but from June 16 through September 7....

The Supreme Court Confirms That Municipalities Can be Subjected to Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Trautner, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). This appeal presented the question of whether municipalities can be liable to pay sanctions for frivolous litigation, under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 ("the FLS"). In a 5-0 opinion written by Justice Fasciale (Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Hoffman did not participate), the Court affirmed, as modified, the decision of the Appellate Division that upheld the Law Division's imposition of FLS sanctions against the Borough....