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

"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....

New Jersey Anti-Fusion Statute, N.J.S.A. 19:13-8, Does Not Violate the New Jersey Constitution

In re Tom Malinowski Petition for Nomination for General Election, November 8, 2022, for United States House of Representatives New Jersey Congressional District 7, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). This case was an "Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week," as discussed here. Today, in an opinion by Judge Gilson, the Appellate Division held that New Jersey's "anti-fusion" statute, N.J.S.A. 19:13-8, which prohibits a candidate for public office from appearing on a ballot on more than one party line, does not violate the New Jersey Constitution. This ruling affirms a decision by the Secretary of State that rejected, citing that same statute, a request by the Moderate Party to Tom Malinowski as its nominee on the November 2022 general election ballot for the United States House of Representatives, 7th Congressional District because Malinowski was already on the ballot as the nominee of the Democratic Party....

January, So Far

With the coming of the new year, this blog went onto a new platform. That fact, along with a Supreme Court oral argument and a Committee on Character hearing last week, has left this blog behind as 2025 begins. Our appellate courts, however, have been active. Here are summaries of their January 2025 published opinions to date:...

Three More Judges Temporarily Assigned to the Appellate Division

Orders of Chief Justice Rabner that temporarily assigned three judges to the Appellate Division, in addition to any other assignments, were released on Friday, April 10. The three judges are...

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....

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....