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

If You Don't List it in Your Notice of Appeal … (redux)

Flaherty v. New Jersey, 2011 WL 66990 (App. Div. Jan. 11, 2011). Two months ago, the Appellate Division reminded us, in a case involving a pro se appellant, that an...

Citing Unpublished Rulings? Attach Them!

In re Trusts to be Established in the Matter of the Estate of Margaret A. Flood, Deceased, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2010). The holding of this case was...

Mistaken Dicta

Staubach Co. of Pennsylvania v. Galloway Automotive, LLC, 2010 WL 5376868 (App. Div. Dec. 3, 2010). In this per curiam opinion, the court "recognize[d] that when the discovery end date...

Never Attach Documents to a Brief!

Muracco v. Township of Washington, 2010 WL 5376867 (App. Div. Nov. 16, 2010). Courts have repeatedly made clear that documents cannot be attached to a brief, but must be appended...

Cite the Record!

Motley v. Division of State Police, 2010 WL 4621498 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2010). In this appeal of the pre-trial dismissal of a CEPA case, the Appellate Division found itself...

Fee Applications Can Sometimes be Made Later

Sisolak v. Briarwood Sportsman's Club, 2010 WL 4483387 (App. Div. Nov. 10, 2010). This opinion states that while it is "generally preferable to have counsel fee applications filed contemporaneously with,...

If You Don't List It in Your Notice of Appeal, It's Not on Appeal

Onuigbo v. American Export Lines, 2011 WL 13762 (App. Div. Nov. 1, 2010). A lawyer would not, or should not, have had happen what occurred here, since appellate lawyers know...

Sometimes an Agency is Wrong

n re Hearn, 417 N.J. Super. 289 (App. Div. 2010). In this published opinion by Judge Ashrafi, the Appellate Division recognized that it gives deference to an agency's view of its own...

Interlocutory vs. Final in the Foreclosure Context

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Garner, 416 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 2010). In this opinion by Judge Koblitz, the Appellate Division declared that a purported appeal from a grant...

Don't Make the Court Ask You Twice

Fletcher v. Camden County Prosecutor's Office, 2010 WL 4226150 (App. Div. Oct. 27, 2010). In this appeal from a summary judgment, the Appellate Division questioned whether the appellate record was...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 192021…Last

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....