green
Positive treatment
Issue: election of remedies doctrineNJ ↗
Issue: election barNJ ↗
Issue: Bank claimNJ ↗
Issue: formulation ruleNJ ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.0 score
“tentative approval”
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
US Pipe and Foundry Co. v. Amer. Arbitration Ass'n
tentative approval
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bosshard v. Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr.
The theory behind this primary standard is that since almost all language is susceptible of more than one reasonable construction, the attendant circumstances are always relevant in ascertaining the intending meaning. [ Id. at 149, 165 A. 2d 543 (citations omitted).] We also referred to this secondary standard: [A] contracting party who manifests his intention ambiguously will generally be held to that meaning that he induces another to understand and rely upon, provides he knows that the other will so understand. [ Id. at 149-50 , 165 A. 2d 543 (citations omitted).] Plaintiff contends that th…
discussed
Cited "see"
Stroka v. United Airlines
See *1252 Joy v. Florence Pipe Foundry Co., 64 N.J.Super. 13, 21-22 , 165 A. 2d 191 (App. Div.1960), certif. denied, 34 N.J. 67 , 167 A. 2d 55 (1961) (finding employee's stroke work-related because it was caused in part by stressors from work); Crotty, supra, 49 N.J.Super. at 74 , 139 A. 2d 126 (stock room clerk murdered while on work break); and Buerkle, supra, 26 N.J.Super. at 407 , 98 A. 2d 327 (injury compensable when employee injured while carrying a booster battery owned by employer to start carpool vehicle after work).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Entron, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance
(2×)
See, e.g., Deerhurst Estates v. Meadow Homes, Inc., 64 N.J.Super. 134, 153 , 165 A.2d 543, 554 (App.Div.1960), certif. denied, 34 N.J. 66 , 167 A.2d 55 (1961); Jardine Estates v. Donna Brook Corp., 42 N.J.Super. 332, 341 , 126 A.2d 372, 377 (App.Div.1956).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
DEERHURST ESTATES, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, CROSS-RESPONDENT,
v.
MEADOW HOMES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER.
v.
MEADOW HOMES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, CROSS-PETITIONER.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Jan 16, 1961.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: New Jersey Superior Court App … (1)
Messrs. Rubenstein & Glick and Messrs. Levy, Lemken & Margulies for the petitioner, cross-respondent.
Messrs. Kristeller, Zucker, Lowenstein & Cohen for the respondent, cross-petitioner.
Denied.