certification requirement in New Jersey

2004AICRA only states “that a plaintiff ‘shall’ provide the required certification ‘[i]n order to satisfy the tort option provisions’ of the subsection, which describes the types of injury required to qualify for non-economic damages under the limitation on lawsuit option.” Id. at 462-63 , 782 A.2d 479 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a).

2004AICRA only states “that a plaintiff ‘shall’ provide the required certification ‘[i]n order to satisfy the tort option provisions’ of the subsection, which describes the types of injury required to qualify for non-economic damages under the limitation on lawsuit option.” Id. at 462-63 , 782 A.2d 479 (quoting N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a).

2020Ibid.

2020A-5545-18T3 11 In support, plaintiffs rely on Lee, 203 N.J. at 525-26 , where the Supreme Court reversed because the trial court failed to accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true at the certification stage and for assuming that defendant would prevail on some of its scientific defenses.

2018The motion judge found "there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding [Praetorian's] compliance with the statutory requirements regarding the cancellation of the policy." The judge distinguished Sroczynski on the basis that the insurer in that case, NJM, "failed to provide any certification at all." The court rejected the Sroczynski Court's analysis that the purpose of the certification requirement "was to place personal responsibility on an employee of the insurer to assure that proper notice of cancellation was given and to require that employee to certify to that fact, recognizing

2018If lower courts felt free to limit Supreme Court opinions precisely to the facts of each case, then our system of jurisprudence would be in shambles, with litigants, lawyers, and legislatures left to grope aimlessly for some semblance of reliable guidance. [Rose, 206 N.J. at 183 (quoting McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991)).] The Court's analysis of the purpose of the certification requirement in Sroczynski is binding and controls the outcome of this case.

2008Lamarque, supra, 927 A.2d at 754—56, 767 n. 26.

2008Lamarque, supra, 927 A.2d at 754—56, 767 n. 26.

2003However, a transformation of the dismissal to one without prejudice offers plaintiff no particular benefit in this case because any reinstitution of suit is barred by the statute of limitations. [ Konopka, supra, 356 N.J.Super. at 228 , 812 A. 2d 363 .] In rejecting the plaintiff's contention that the doctrine of substantial compliance should have been invoked to avoid the statute-of-limitations bar, since she had submitted, within one month of the filing of the defendant's answer, "a report by her treating chiropractor that established permanency[,]" ibid., the Konopka court stated, in pertin

2003However, a transformation of the dismissal to one without prejudice offers plaintiff no particular benefit in this case because any reinstitution of suit is barred by the statute of limitations. [ Konopka, supra, 356 N.J.Super. at 228 , 812 A. 2d 363 .] In rejecting the plaintiff's contention that the doctrine of substantial compliance should have been invoked to avoid the statute-of-limitations bar, since she had submitted, within one month of the filing of the defendant's answer, "a report by her treating chiropractor that established permanency[,]" ibid., the Konopka court stated, in pertin

2000In determining whether “fundamental fairness,” Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Construction Co., supra, 161 N.J. at 192 , 735 A.2d 1142 , warrants excluding this matter and the twelve companion matters from the prospectivity ruling, I must consider Secaucus’s effort and expense, and also must consider any unfairness or injustice resulting from depriving all thirteen projects of them tax exemption by applying my interpretation of the certification requirement retroactively.

2000In determining whether “fundamental fairness,” Kibble v. Weeks Dredging & Construction Co., supra, 161 N.J. at 192 , 735 A.2d 1142 , warrants excluding this matter and the twelve companion matters from the prospectivity ruling, I must consider Secaucus’s effort and expense, and also must consider any unfairness or injustice resulting from depriving all thirteen projects of them tax exemption by applying my interpretation of the certification requirement retroactively.

2000As I have previously explained, Town of Secaucus v. City of Jersey City, supra 19 N.J.

1991"The police power is the public right to reasonable regulation for the common good and welfare." Katobimar Realty Co. v. Webster, 20 N.J. 114, 123 , 118 A. 2d 824 (1955).

1991"The police power is the public right to reasonable regulation for the common good and welfare." Katobimar Realty Co. v. Webster, 20 N.J. 114, 123 , 118 A. 2d 824 (1955).

1991In Accountemps Div. of Robert Half of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Birch Tree Group, Ltd., 115 N.J. 614 , 560 A. 2d 663 (1989), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld, over a commerce clause challenge, a state statute requiring the registration of out-of-state employment agencies doing business within New Jersey.

1991In Accountemps Div. of Robert Half of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Birch Tree Group, Ltd., 115 N.J. 614 , 560 A. 2d 663 (1989), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld, over a commerce clause challenge, a state statute requiring the registration of out-of-state employment agencies doing business within New Jersey.

1988As the Appellate Division said in Parmigiani : “Certification is only another way of swearing or affirming.” 125 N.J.Super. at 206-207 .

1980Orange Taxpayers Council, Inc. v. City of Orange, 169 N.J.Super. 288 (App.Div.1979).

1980Id.

1979The trial judge concluded that (1) these provisions of the ordinance are not reasonably related to the purposes of rent control, (2) they have "a draconian consequence of an added penalty for violation of the code" and (3) "the landlord seeking an increase to cure violations by a capital improvement or hardship increase cannot even file the petition *303 because such a landlord could not get the certification." Relying on the case of Modular Concepts v. South Brunswick Tp., supra , he held the certification requirement invalid.