Source: https://www.ppwlaw.com/blog/uncategorized/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:02:32+00:00

Document:
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Thursday, May 23, 2013.
Knoster v. Ford Motor Company 2006 WL 2561234 (C.A.3 (N.J.)) is case where the Plaintiff filed claims under both the New Jersey Product Liability Act ("PLA") and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Specifically under the PLA, the plaintiff filed a failure to warn and a design-defect claim. The District Court dismissed the consumer fraud claim and entered judgment in favor of the Defendant based on the jury's verdict. The Plaintiff appealed on a variety of claims.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Friday, March 15, 2013.
In MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORP., 668 F. 3d 1174 (2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision that was upheld by the Tenth Circuit. The District Court had ordered the losing plaintiff, Marx (who had defaulted on her student loans) to pay the defendant's partial court and attorneys fees. In this case Marx had claimed that her creditor, General Revenue Corporation (GRC) was harassing her via phone calls and letters to her employer, and falsely claiming to garnish half of her wages. The decision, which was a matter of statutory interpretation, will help to provide other circuits with guidance, however, it has sparked an interesting policy concern.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Tuesday, September 18, 2012.
Giannini v. Rosenberg, No. 11-3542 (June 8, 2012 D.N.J.) is a case which examines the process of bringing a malpractice suit while an ethics charge is still pending. This case is being presented to show the various levels of complaints which are available to Plaintiffs as well as how the systems work in harmony when discussing Constitutional claims.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Friday, April 27, 2012.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Sunday, January 29, 2012.
Uberoi v. Stark & Stark (S & S) is not groundbreaking for the law it presents, but rather for the idea it reinforces in New Jersey legal malpractice claims. Often times, clients may believe they have suffered as a result of the malpractice of attorneys. However, no liability will accompany this feeling of helplessness unless the court is convinced that the attorney's mistake proximately caused damage to the client. As a side note, the case also showed that arbitration will not preclude a successive action if the burden is more strenuous at arbitration.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Thursday, January 19, 2012.
Sabella v. Estate of Milides provides a very key point for those interested in legal malpractice claims. Mainly, if one feels they have been wronged by opposing counsel, they need not worry about the lack of an attorney-client relationship, and may instead file a claim alleging abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Monday, November 14, 2011.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Friday, November 11, 2011.
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Uncategorized on Friday, November 4, 2011.
In Kituskie v. Corbman, it is shown that in order to prevail in a legal malpractice claim arising out of a civil matter, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she would have prevailed in the underlying matter 682 A.2d 378 (1996).
On behalf of Weisberg Law posted in Legal Malpractice on Sunday, October 30, 2011.
In Veneri v. Pappano, there were two take away points, one for attorneys who work for the government and the other for clients who feel they have been wronged by their attorneys. 622 A. 2d 977 (Pa. Superior 1993).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.