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

A Wise Decision Under the Consumer Fraud Act

D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (2013). The requirement of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19 ("CFA"), that a consumer sustain an "ascertainable loss" as a prerequisite to recovery has...

"In But Not Of" (Or Just "Of") is Dispositive of Clash Over COAH

In re Plan for the Abolition of the Council on Affordable Housing, 214 N.J. 444 (2013). The Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH") was established as part of the Legislature's response to the...

The Supreme Court Resolves a Family Business Dispute

Sipko v. Koger, Inc., 214 N.J. 364 (2013). Sometimes, it is not clear why the Supreme Court grants review. When the Court granted certification in this case, which involved a dispute among...

Two Issues Under the Construction Statute of Repose

Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76 (2013). Deciding when the ten-year construction statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.1, begins to run is often a difficult issue for courts. In this case,...

The Right to Amend, and Relation Back

Prime Accounting Dep't v. Carney's Point Tp., 212 N.J. 403 (2013). This tax appeal case came about because the defendant municipality's tax assessment list showed plaintiff as the owner of the subject...

Non-Delegable Duties: Horrific Facts Don't Make New Law

Davis v. Devereux Foundation, 209 N.J. 269 (2012). Under the Restatement of Agency (Second), §219(2)(c), when one has a duty to protect others and delegates that duty to an agent, such as an...

Discovery Rule Does Not Toll the Time to File a Notice of Claim Against a Public Entity

McDade v. Siazon, 208 N.J. 463 (2011). Under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8(a), one who wishes to make a tort claim against a public entity must first file a notice of...

Justice Patterson is Sworn In

On September 1, Justice Patterson assumed the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Rivera-Soto. Today, she was publicly sworn in, at a ceremony at Trenton's War Memorial to which...

It's Now "Justice Patterson"

Yesterday, by a 36-0 vote, the Senate rightly confirmed Anne Patterson as a Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. She will assume the seat now held by Justice Rivera-Soto when...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

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....