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

"The Unique Facts of This Case" Lead the Supreme Court to Hold That the Defense Was Properly Required to Produce a Certain Affidavit in Reciprocal Discovery

State v. Knight, 257 N.J. 248 (2024). In this opinion by Justice Pierre-Louis today, a unanimous Supreme Court twice stated that the facts of this case were "unique." That is...

The Public Disclosure Bar of the New Jersey False Claims Act

State of New Jersey ex rel. Health Choice Group, LLC v. Bayer Corporation, 478 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2024). As Judge Gilson discussed in his opinion for the Appellate...

No Jurisdiction in New Jersey Over Boys and Girls Clubs of America

E.T. v. The Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County, 478 N.J. Super. 102 (App. Div. 2024). This appeal actually consisted of six consolidated matters. Similar to recent decisions involving...

The Administrative Agency Standard of Review Applies to Internal Decisions of a University Regarding Removal of a Tenured Faculty Member

Ng v. Fairleigh Dickinson University, 478 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 2024). This opinion by Judge Smith upheld the decision of the Board of Trustees to terminate the employment of...

Two Statutory Interpretation Decisions: One Involving Discipline of a Tenured Teacher and the Other About Unemployment Tax Payments for Court Reporters

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Sanjuan v. School District of West New York, 256 N.J. 369 (2024). There, plaintiff, a long-serving teacher who was also an assistant principal and tenured...

To Start the Week, A Catch-Up Post

While the Supreme Court has been quiet since it handed down this decision, the Appellate Division has issued six published opinions during the recent period. Here are summaries of those...

Policyholder Loses in the Supreme Court on Claims for Business Interruption Insurance Coverage for COVID-19 Losses

AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co., 256 N.J. 294 (2024). [Disclosure: I was one of the counsel for United Policyholders, an amicus in support of...

Two Supreme Court Rulings in Criminal Appeals

Yesterday and today each saw a decision by the Supreme Court in criminal matters. Today's ruling in State v. Hill, 256 N.J. 266 (2024), authored by Justice Wainer Apter, involved...

This Week's Published Opinions

Another week, another week where work for clients made it impossible to keep up with the courts. This week featured two unanimous opinions from the Supreme Court, one civil, one...

No OPRA or Common Law Access Right to Police Body-Worn Camera Video

Fuster v. Township of Chatham, 477 N.J. Super. 477 (App. Div. 2023). This Open Public Records Act ("OPRA") case implicated not only that statute but the Body Worn camera Law...

1 2 3 4 5 678 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 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....