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

The "Time of Application Rule" and the Definition of an "Application for Development" That Triggers That Rule

Dunbar Homes, Inc. v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj., 448 N.J. Super. 583 (App. Div. 2017). The Municipal Land Use Law ("MLUL"), in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5, contains a "time of application...

Two Issues Under the Open Public Meetings Act

Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morell, 448 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 2017). As a public body, Kean University's Board of Trustees is subject to the Open Public Meetings Act,...

Jury Waiver and Fee Award to Defendant in CEPA Case Are Overturned

Noren v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 486 (App. Div. 2017). In Abbamont v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ., 238 N.J. Super. 603 (App. Div. 1990), aff'd, 138...

OPRA Requests Can be Requested Under OPRA

Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, 448 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2017). In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs each sent requests under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to...

A New Test for Statute of Limitations Choice of Law Decisions: Restatement Section 142

Scheeler v. Office of the Governor, 448 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2017). In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs each sent requests under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 to...

A Clearly Articulated Statutory Immunity Applies, Even if it Seems Unfair

Kirkpatrick v. Hidden View Farm, 448 N.J. Super. 165 (App. Div. 2017). A boy who tagged along with his mother to a horse farm but did not himself take part...

Sovereign Immunity Prevails, But the State Police Still Lose

Royster v. New Jersey State Police, 227 N.J. 482 (2017). Today's decision is a unique one. Writing for the majority of five Justices (Justices LaVecchia, Patterson, Fernandez-Vina, Solomon, and Timpone),...

Alter Ego Theory Failed to Sustain Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Parent Corporation

FDASmart, Inc. v. Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals Ltd., 448 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 2016). Plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract against two defendants, Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals,...

Fee Awards Under Consumer Statutes Can Go Beyond the Extent of a Plaintiff's Success On His or Her Complaint

DeGarmeaux v. DNV Concepts, Inc., 448 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 2016). As Judge Manahan stated in his opinion for the Appellate Division in this case, "[t]he issue of reasonbleness...

Rule 11 Sanctions Are Not to be Imposed for Minor Alleged Offenses

Moeck v. Pleasant Valley School District, 844 F.3d 387 (3d Cir. 2016). Motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 are not favored because, as Judge Shwartz pointed...

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 41 42 43 444546 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....