NJ Appellate Law Blog

A Primer About the Attorney-Client Privilege

Hedden v. Kean University, 434 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2013). This interlocutory appeal, which resulted in a 2-1 decision by the Appellate Division, involved issues of attorney-client privilege. In an...

Same Sex Marriages May Proceed, as Supreme Court Denies Stay Pending Appeal

Today, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Rabner, denying the State's request to stay the Law Division's ruling that allows same sex marriages in New...

Privacy: The Right to Freedom From Unwarranted Intrusion

Soliman v. The Kushner Companies, Inc., 433 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 2013). Defendants secretly installed hidden surveillance cameras in bathrooms in an office building that they operated. The stated reason...

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...

No Jury Trial Right Under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act

Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Lajara, 433 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 2013). Plaintiff insurers sued a number of defendants under the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 to...

Judging and Comedic Performances Do Not Mix

IMO Advisory Letter No. 3-11 and Opinion No. 12-08 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Extrajudicial Activities, 215 N.J. 495 (2013). Since 2008, Vincent Sicari has been a part-time...

New Emergent Application Procedures in the Appellate Division

The Appellate Division has announced new procedures for emergent applications. The Notice to the Bar that details those procedures is available here. The key change is that the Appellate Division...

CEPA and "Watchdog" Employees

Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., 432 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 2013). Today's opinion under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -8 ("CEPA"), written by Judge Fuentes, reversed a summary...

The Year's Longest Published Appellate Division Decision

Kaye v. Rosefielde, 432 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 2013). This first post of the 2013-2014 Term focuses on the longest published decision issued by the Appellate Division in the just-ended 2012-2013...

Egg Creams and "Equitable Mootness"

In re Semcrude, L.P., 728 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2013). An egg cream is a fountain drink, associated primarily with New York City, whose ingredients include neither egg nor cream....

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 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 686970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84…Last

The Second and Third Published Appellate Division Decisions of the Current Term

As September turned to October, the Appellate Division issued its second and third published opinions of the Term. One was a decision by Judge Vinci in a civil appeal. The other ruling, in a criminal appeal, was authored by Judge Perez Friscia....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Did it Violate a Class Action Settlement That Barred Mass Opt-Outs to Allow Opt-Outs From a Marketing Campaign That Solicited Opt-outs?

On Tuesday, September 30, judges on Part G of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Esposito v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The case follows from a $100 million nationwide class action settlement that had required class members who decided to exclude themselves from the settlement and potentially pursue their own litigation against Verizon to opt out individually, and barred mass opt-outs. However, Murphy Advocates, LLC, a Colorado law firm conducted a marketing campaign to create a mass opt-out that attracted about 11,000 class members who responded to Murphy that they wished to opt out....

A Pair of New Criminal Appeals for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel....

Can a Plaintiff in a Civil Case Refuse to Testify at Trial After Being Served With a Defense Notice in Lieu of Subpoena and Having Been Ordered to Testify by the Trial Judge? An Anniversary

On this date in 2005, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005). The case involved a plaintiff who was shot in an apartment building in Atlantic City, which left him paralyzed. He brought a negligence suit against a number of defendants, including Atlantic City Housing & Urban Renewal Associates ("ACHURA"), the owner of the apartment building....