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

"In But Not Of" (Or Just "Of") is Dispositive of Clash Over COAH

In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing, 214 N.J. 444 (2013). The Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") was established as part of the Legislature's response to the...

Supreme Court Says TCCWNA Gives Broad Protections to Consumers

Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc., 214 N.J. 419 (2013). [Disclosure: I argued this case in the Supreme Court for the successful plaintiffs]. This consumer protection case has had a long odyssey. Originally filed...

Supreme Court Denies Review of Senatorial Election Dispute

This afternoon, the Supreme Court issued an Order denying plaintiffs' petition for certification in this election matter. As the Order notes, that disposition moots plaintiffs' request for emergent relief. The special...

New Jersey State Firemen's Association is a "Public Agency" for Open Public Records Act Purposes

Paff v. New Jersey State Firemen's Ass'n, 431 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2013). John Paff is a frequent litigant under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. ("OPRA"). He...

Supreme Court Schedules Briefing on Senatorial Election Challenge

The Supreme Court has issued a schedule for briefing on the emergent appeal by parties challenging Governor Christie's scheduling of special elections to fill the United States Senate seat held by Senator Lautenberg...

Appellate Division Rejects Challenge to Special Senatorial Election Process

Having agreed to review on an emergent basis an attack on Governor Christie's decision to schedule a special primary in August and a general election in October to fill the...

Ski Act Does Not Govern Accidents Between Skiers

Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J. 99 (2013). Plaintiffs' decedent had a skiing accident with a snowboarder, from which plaintiff's' decedent later died. His estate sued the ski area and the...

City Clerk Did Not Comply With Faulkner Act, But That Did Not Constitute a Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act

Tumpson v. Farina, 431 N.J. Super. 164 (App. Div. 2013). This case arose under the Faulkner Act, N.J.S.A. 40:69A-1 to -210. [Disclosure: My firm, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, represented defendants in this...

The Passive Voice (and Persuasive Legislative History) Makes the Difference in Statutory Interpretation

Cologna v. Board of Trustees, Police & Firemen's Retirement Syst., 430 N.J. Super. 362 (App. Div. 2013). By statute, a former member of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS") normally has two...

Election Laws Have Flexibility

Regalado v. Curling, 430 N.J. Super. 342 (App. Div. 2013). The lesson of this short opinion by Judge Sapp-Peterson, issued the day after this appeal was orally argued due to the need...

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…Last

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....

"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....