NJ Appellate Law Blog

If Your Client Switches Attorneys, It'll be Hard to Sue the New Lawyer for Tortious Interference

Nostrame v. Santiago, 213 N.J. 109 (2013). When a personal injury plaintiff in a potentially big case switches attorneys, the attorney being replaced may see a potentially large fee disappearing. It is...

Supreme Court Will Review Nostrame v. Santiago

In Nostrame v. Santiago, 420 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2011), discussed here, the Appellate Division held that an attorney whose client replaced him with another attorney could not sue...

When A Client Legitimately Decides to Change Counsel, the Replaced Attorney Can't Sue the New Attorney

Nostrame v. Santiago, 420 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2011). Many attorneys have seen a potentially lucrative case walk out the door because the client has decided to switch attorneys. The...

A Supreme Court Guaranty Decision and an Appellate Division VASPA Ruling

The Supreme Court has issued one opinion, involving a guaranty of indebtedness, and the Appellate Division one published ruling, under the Victim's Assistance and Survivor Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-13 to -21 ("VASPA"). Here's what they were about....

Appellate Division Oral Argument of the Week: Is the Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals a Public Agency That is Subject to the Open Public Records Act?

On Thursday, December 4, judges on Part C of the Appellate Division will hear oral argument in Wronko v. Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("MCSPCA"). The case arises under the Open Public Records Act, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq. ("OPRA"), and the common law right of access....

Before Thanksgiving ….

The week of Thanksgiving and the week preceding it saw one Supreme Court opinion and four published rulings from the Appellate Division. Catching up, here are summaries....

A Colossal Inter-Municipality Contract Dispute for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in Jersey City Municipal Utilities Auth. v. Town of Dover. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Do the 1971 settlement agreement and the 1984 amendment to that settlement agreement constitute an unlawful perpetual municipal contract without a finite endpoint, are they void as against public policy and the Clean Water Act, and are they terminated if the capacity of the Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority treatment plant expands beyond twelve million gallons per day?"...