1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.3d
  4. 35 A.3d
  5. 35 A.3d 1177 (2012)
 

WALKER v. GIUFFRE

Nos. 066969, 067267.

35 A.3d 1177 (2012)

209 N.J. 124

May L. WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carmelo GIUFFRE, individually, Carmelo Giuffre, d/b/a Bay Ridge Automotive Management Corp., Route 22 Auto Sales, Inc., Route 22 Automobiles, Inc., Hudson Auto Sales, Inc., Freehold Auto Sales, Inc., Freehold Automotive Limited Inc., and Freehold Jeep/Eagle, Inc., Defendants, and Route 22 Nissan, Inc., Defendant-Respondent. Bobbie Humphries, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza and Holly Gardens, Inc., Defendants-Respondents.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided January 25, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Bruce D. Greenberg , Newark, argued the cause for appellant May L. Walker ( Lite DePalma Greenberg , Galex Wolf , and Mehri & Skalet, attorneys; Mr. Greenberg , Andrew R. Wolf , North Brunswick, and Steven A. Skalet , a member of the District of Columbia bar, on the briefs).

Edward A. Kopelson , Morristown, argued the cause for appellant Bobbie Humphries.

Salvatore A. Giampiccolo argued the cause for respondent Route 22 Nissan, Inc. (McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, attorneys; Mr. Giampiccolo and Lisbeth W. Cload , Ridgewood, on the briefs).

Joseph A. O'Neill argued the cause for respondents Powder Mill Shopping Plaza and Holly Gardens, Inc. (Garofalo & O'Neill, attorneys).

David A. Mazie argued the cause for amicus curiae Consumers League of New Jersey (Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman, attorneys; Adam M. Slater , Roseland, on the brief).

Lisa Manshel , Millburn, and Frederic J. Gross submitted briefs on behalf of amicus curiae National Employment Lawyers Association-New Jersey (Francis & Manshel and Frederic J. Gross Law Firm, attorneys).

Justice HOENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Courts in New Jersey have traditionally adhered to the American Rule as the principle that governs attorneys' fees. This guiding concept provides that, absent authorization by contract, statute or rule, each party to a litigation is responsible for the fees charged by his or her attorney. Fees charged by one's own attorney, of course, must comply with our Rules of Professional Conduct, see RPC 1.5, and fees...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases