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

Two Grants of Leave to Appeal, and One Grant of Certification, by the Supreme Court

Supreme Court grants of certification far outnumber grants of leave to appeal. But not this time. The Supreme Court announced two grants of leave to appeal, both in criminal cases,...

Two New Supreme Court Cases: A Direct Certification and an Appeal as of Right

The Supreme Court announced today that two more cases have been added to its docket. In one of them, the Court granted direct certification and ordered an accelerated schedule. The...

Two Grants of Certification and a Solicitation for Amicus Briefs by the Supreme Court

All New Jersey state and federal courts are closed today for Columbus Day. But late last Friday, the Supreme Court announced that it had granted review in two more criminal...

State v. Czachor

Thirty five years ago today, the Supreme Court decided State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980). In an opinion by Justice Handler, the Court revolutionized the criminal law by abandoning...

Four New Criminal Appeals, and a Lone Civil Matter, for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new appeals. Four of them are criminal cases and one is a civil appeal....

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....

"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....