Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg
Mar 16

Appellate Oral Arguments in the Time of Coronavirus

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Mar 16, 2020 in Administrative matters, Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New Jersey, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Supreme Court | 1 comment
As announced here, the Supreme Court of the United States today advised that, “in light of public health concerns,” it is postponing oral arguments that had been scheduled for March 23-25 and March 30-April 1. “The Court will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course in light of the developing circumstances,” its press release stated. Among the cases that were to be heard during that period are cases involving efforts by different parties to get access to Donald Trump’s tax or financial records. Will those cases still be heard and decided...
Oct 7

The U.S. Supreme Court Adopts (and Adapts) a New Jersey Supreme Court Oral Argument Practice

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Oct 7, 2019 in Administrative matters, Supreme Court of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court | 1 comment
This morning, the first Monday in October, the Supreme Court of the United States gets back in business. The “Guide for Counsel in Cases to be Argued Before the Supreme Court of the United States,” available here, has been revised to state as follows: “The Court generally will not question lead counsel for petitioners (or appellants) and respondents (or appellees) during the first two minutes of argument. The white light on the lectern will illuminate briefly at the end of this period to signal the start of questioning. Where argument is divided and counsel represents an...
May 28

An Unusual U.S. Supreme Court Lineup Rules Against Class Action Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants on a Removal Issue

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on May 28, 2019 in Class actions, Consumer protection, Statutory interpretation, United States Supreme Court | 0 comments
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 1743 (2019). Among other changes made by the so-called Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. 1453(b) (“CAFA”) made it easier for class action defendants to remove to federal court putative class action cases filed in state courts. That provision states that a class action may be removed by “any defendant without the consent of all defendants.” CAFA supplemented the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1441(a), which permits removal of any civil action “by the defendant or the defendants.” But what about...
« Older Entries

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress