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

Back in Action

The appellate courts have not been idle since the most recent post on this blog. Opinions have been issued, the Supreme Court has taken up more cases for review, and...

Tenure Rights Vindicated in the Supreme Court

Miller v. State Operated School District of the City of Newark, ___ N.J. ___ (2019). Today, in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed, by a 5-2 vote, the...

Statements Against Interest, a Hearsay Exception

Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531 (2019). This first Supreme Court opinion of the new Term, written by Justice Patterson for a unanimous Court, addresses the hearsay...

"Affirmed by an Equally Divided Court"

L.R. v. Camden City Public School Dist., 238 N.J. 547 (2019). A relative rarity for our Supreme Court occurred in this case today: the decision of the Appellate Division was...

When New Issues Arise on Appeal, Appellate Division Should Conduct Oral Argument Even if No Party Originally Requested It

State in the Interest of D.M., 238 N.J. 2 (2019). In this juvenile delinquency case, neither the State nor defendant sought oral argument in the Appellate Division. The State, the...

A Blast From the Past: The Entire Controversy Doctrine and Legal Malpractice Claims

Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman and Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91 (2019). In 1997, the Supreme Court decided Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424 (1997). That decision held,...

The Supreme Court Answers Certified Questions About the Ticket Resale Law

Finkleman v. National Football League, 236 N.J. 280 (2019). This opinion by Justice Patterson today answers certified questions posed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals arising out of a...

The 1,500th Post- Making up a December Deficit

A major Appellate Division argument, appellate briefing, and other work has interfered with keeping up with the courts during December. So it's time for one of this blog's periodic "catch-up"...

Back in Action!

Due to travel over most of the past two weeks (and getting "back in the game" once having returned), there have been no posts here. But the courts have been...

A Big (In Every Way) Decision Under the New Jersey Constitution's Legislative Review Clause

Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 234 N.J. 483 (2018). In one of the biggest constitutional decisions of the current term, an unusually divided Supreme...

1 2 3 4 567 8 9 10…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....