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

No Need for a Law Firm LLP to Have "Tail" Insurance, Says the Supreme Court

Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, LLP, 225 N.J. 423 (2016). Justice Fernandez-Vina issued an opinion in this legal malpractice appeal today, his first opinion in quite some time,...

Two Days, Two New Law Against Discrimination Opinions From the Supreme Court

In each of the last two days, the Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions involving the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42 ("LAD"). Yesterday, in Smith v. Millville...

Exceptional Circumstances Called for Extension of Discovery to Allow Medical Malpractice Plaintiff to Get a New Expert

Castello v. Wohler, 446 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2016). In Medina v. Pitta, 442 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2015), discussed here, the Appellate Division ruled that a physician...

Public Employees Lose Again, as Supreme Court Upholds Suspension of Pension Cost of Living Adjustments

Berg v. Christie, 225 N.J. 245 (2016). Today's decision in this closely-watched case shows once again the importance of the standard of review applied. In a 6-1 decision by Justice...

When is a Child Witness Competent to Testify?

State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193 (2016). Today, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of how a trial court should evaluate the competency of a child witness to testify. The...

Hospitals Lose Their Appeal of Horizon's OMNIA Health Alliance

Capital Health System, Inc. v. New Jersey Dep't of Banking & Insurance, 445 N.J. Super. 522 (App. Div. 2016). In September 2015, the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance...

Temporary Help Service Firms vs. Employment Agencies, and Registration vs. Licensure

AIT Global Inc. v. Yadav, 445 N.J. Super. 513 (App. Div. 2016). Plaintiff in this case was a temporary help service firm ("THSF") that provided short-term information technology consultants for...

"Cumulative Error" Results in Reversal of a Plaintiffs' Jury Verdict

Torres v. Pabon, 225 N.J. 167 (2016). As Justice Patterson explained in her decision today for a unanimous Supreme Court, "cumulative error" exists when "the aggregate effect of a series...

Gun Control Act is Constitutional as Applied to Machine Guns, and a Trust That Owns a Machine Gun is Subject to That Law

United States v. One Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun, 822 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2016). Constitutional challenges to gun regulations are frequently filed, and most of them are without basis....

A "Chicken-and-Egg Problem" of Subject Matter Jurisdiction in an Estate Case

In re Estate of Byung-Tae Oh, 445 N.J. Super. 402 (App. Div. 2016). In 2001, the decedent in this estate matter, Byung-Tae Oh, at all times a citizen of South...

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 44 45 46 47 484950 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....