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

Expert Testimony That Shaking Alone Can Cause the Injuries Associated With "Shaken Baby Syndrome" is Insufficiently Reliable to be Admissible at Trial

State v. Nieves, 476 N.J. Super. 609 (App. Div. 2023). This was a monumental opinion by Judge Gooden Brown in two consolidated cases. The issue was "the scientific reliability of...

As the New Term Begins, The Supreme Court Takes up Five New Appeals

Kicking off the new Term, the Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five new cases. Four of those are civil cases, while one is a criminal matter...

The First Published Appellate Division Decision of the New Term, by Judge Gooden Brown

S.B.B. v. L.B.B., 476 N.J. Super. 575 (App. Div. 2023). Last week saw the first published Appellate Division opinion of the new Term. Judge Gooden Brown authored the opinion. Here...

As the New Term Begins, Reminders From the Appellate Division About Oral Argument

The Appellate Division has issued this Notice to the Bar It contains important reminders about several matters relating to oral argument in that court. First, the Notice states that appeals...

Judges Vanek and Vinci Are Temporarily Assigned to the Appellate Division

Chief Justice Rabner announced that Judges Christine Vanek and Robert Vinci are being temporarily assigned to the Appellate Division for the period of October 2- December 1, 2023. Judge Vanek...

The Final Published Opinion of the Current Term and Noscitur a Sociis

In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327), Office Building and Appurtentant Structures, Highlands Applicability Determination, Program Interest No.: 1615-17-0004.2 (APD200001), 476 N.J. Super. 556 (App. Div. 2023)....

The Anniversary of Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp.

On this date in 2011, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp., 207 N.J. 557 (2011). The Court's 6-0 decision, authored by Justice Albin, involved the question of...

Expert's Failure to Show That Attorney's Conduct Proximately Caused Damages Defeated Malpractice Claim

Morris Properties, Inc. v. Wheeler, 476 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2023). This was a legal malpractice case, in which Judge Gummer wrote today's opinion for the Appellate Division. Plaintiff...

The First Half of August- Appellate Division Decisions

Continuing the catch-up process begun here and here, this post summarizes the five published Appellate Division decisions issued during the first half of August: Neuwirth v. State of New Jersey,...

The First Half of August- Supreme Court Decisions in Civil Cases

Following up on yesterday's post regarding criminal appeals decided by the Supreme Court in the first half of August, this post summarizes the Court's decisions in civil cases during that...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181920 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167…Last

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....

"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....