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

False Statement Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Must be Material to be Actionable

Jensen v. Pressler & Pressler, 791 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2015). Plaintiff defaulted on a credit card debt. The debt was sold, and the buyer attempted to collect on it....

Under ERISA, "Some Success," Even Via Settlement, Permits an Attorneys' Fee Award

Templin v. Independence Blue Cross, 785 F.3d 861 (3d Cir. 2015). "A party seeking attorney's fees under ERISA [the Employees Retirement Income Security Act] must show ‘some success' on the...

"Extraordinary Circumstances" Justifying Late Notice of Tort Claim

Beyer v. Sea Bright Borough, 440 N.J. Super. 424 (App. Div. 2015). The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, requires anyone who wants to bring a tort claim against...

"Trustworthiness" of Testimony Under a Hearsay Exception, and the Need for a Rule 104 Hearing

Estate of Grieco v. Schmidt, 440 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2015). Today's decision by Judge Fisher is another example of an appellate ruling involving hearsay rules. In this wrongful...

Towns Can't Impose Additional Requirements, Even Redundant Ones, on Gun Applications

In re Denial of Application of Z.K. for a New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and Permit to Purchase, 440 N.J. Super. 394 (App. Div. 2015). Yesterday, while many of...

The Appellate Division Rejects Ascertainability as a Class Action Criterion, and Changes the Rules for Interlocutory Appeals of Class Certification Decisions

Daniels v. Hollister Co., 440 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div. 2015). Readers of this blog have gotten their fill (including, most recently, here and here) of discussion and analysis of...

Motions for Reconsideration, and "Little Used" Statutes Protecting the Priority of Employees' Wages Against Creditors of the Employer

The Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 2015). There are not many published appellate opinions that discuss the rules for levying or...

For Want of a Transcript, An Appellate Issue is Forfeited

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P., 785 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2015). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 requires an appellant to "order … a...

A Turning Point for the Carrera v. Bayer Ascertainability Doctrine?

Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2015). In this case under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2511, there were "objective records" that could "readily identify"...

Supreme Court's Decision in Shelton v. Restaurant.com Applies Retroactively to Plaintiffs

Bohus v. Restaurant.com, Inc., 784 F.3d 918 (3d Cir. 2015). [Disclosure: I argued this appeal for plaintiffs in this case]. Retroactivity of judicial opinions is sometimes a difficult question. The...

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 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 555657 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....