Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Can Sea Bright Seek to Withdraw From the Oceanport School District and Join a Different District? | NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

On Tuesday, October 1, judges on Part F will hear oral argument in In the Matter of the Verified Petition for the Proposed Creation of a PK-12 All-Purpose Regional School District by the Borough of Sea Bright et al. The Borough of Sea Bright sought to withdraw from the Oceanport School District, a district operated by the Oceanport Board of Education that educates students from both Sea Bright and Oceanport in grades PK-8. High school students in the Oceanport School District attend Shore Regional High School. Sea Bright sought to join the Henry Hudson Regional School District instead.

Sea Bright petitioned the Commissioner of Education by resolution pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:13-47.11, seeking approval of its desire to withdraw from the Oceanport School District and to join Henry Hudson. Oceanport and Shore Regional opposed that petition. The Commissioner dismissed Sea Bright’s petition without prejudice but held that Sea Bright was the type of entity that the statute permitted to file an application of the type that it did.

The Oceanport and Shore Regional Boards of Education appealed to the Appellate Division. They sought reversal of the Commissioner’s decision that Sea Bright could validly seek withdrawal under the statute at a future time. Appellants argue that the statute itself lists those entities that may seek such relief, and that Sea Bright is not among them because the municipality does not fit into the statutory definition.

Sea Bright takes a different view. It contends that the Commissioner’s decision is entitled to significant deference and that appellants’ interpretation of the statute leads to what Sea Bright labels an unfair and absurd result that municipalities whose school districts are merged into the district of another municipality are forever bound to that arrangement. The Commissioner filed a letter brief in support of affirmance as well. All of the appellate briefs are available here.

The oral argument can be viewed in a livestream here. This is a long-running dispute that affects a number of municipalities in the Oceanport and Henry Hudson School Districts. Persons in those municipalities and others interested in education issues may find the argument particularly worth watching.

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....