Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistrygreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., D.D., 213 N.J. at 135, 140, 142 (holding a trial court is not "authorized to grant leave to file a late notice of tort claim" absent extraordinary circumstances, even though "defendants did not advance any argument that they were prejudiced by the untimely filing"). 2020In its consideration of a motion for leave to file a late notice of tort claim, "the court's focus must be directed to the evidence that relates to [a] plaintiff's circumstances as they were during the ninety-day time period, because that is the time during which the notice should have been filed." D.D., 213 N.J. at 151 . | 2 | 4 |
Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C.green1 sentence2025Richard & Son, LLC, 246 N.J. 157 , 171 (2021) (citing Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019)). 1 Although plaintiff's notice of appeal included the order denying his motion to file a late notice of tort claim, his merits brief does not address this order. | 1 | 1 |
Maher v. County of Mercergreen1 sentence2025Super. 331, 341 (App. Div. 2006) (allowing a late notice of tort claim where plaintiff contracted AIDS because of a sexual relationship with his teacher, learned he had the disease one year after his graduation from the school, and suffered mental distress and anguish); Maher v. A-2425-23 9 Cty. of Mercer, 384 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
O'Donnell v. N.J. Tpk. Auth.green1 sentence2019Under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, a claimant can file a motion to submit a late notice of tort claim "within one year after the accrual of his claim," if there are "sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances" for the claimant's failure to timely file a notice of claim within the statutory ninety-day period, and if "the public entity . . . [is not] substantially prejudiced thereby." O'Donnell, 236 N.J. at 346 (emphasis omitted) (quoting N.J.S.A. 59:8-9). | 1 | 1 |
Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiminggreen2 sentences2013See Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 146 , 543 A.2d 443 (1988). 2013See Lamb v. Global Landfill Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 146 , 543 A.2d 443 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDade v. Siazon
green
2 sentences2021A-1757-19 12 Under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, a claimant can file a motion to submit a late notice of tort claim "within one year after the accrual of the cause of action," if there are "'sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances' for the claimant's failure to timely file" a notice of claim within the statutory ninety- day period, and if "the public entity [is not] 'substantially prejudiced' thereby." McDade, 208 N.J. at 476 -77 (quoting N.J.S.A. 59:8-9). 2018Under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9, a claimant can file a motion to submit a late notice of tort claim "within one year after the accrual of the cause of action," if there are "'sufficient reasons constituting extraordinary circumstances' for the claimant's failure to timely file" a notice of claim within the statutory ninety - day period, and if "the public entity [is not] 'substantially prejudiced' thereby." McDade, 208 N.J. at 476 -77 (quoting N.J.S.A. 59:8-9). | 3 | 2018–2021 |
Beauchamp v. Amedio
green
1 sentence2025Rutgers argues: (1) the motion court applied the incorrect standard when it found "sufficient reasons" warranted granting plaintiff leave to file a late notice of tort claim; (2) the holding in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111 (2000), rejects the argument, adopted by the motion court, that a claimant who is unaware of the seriousness of her injury could, on that fact alone, be deemed to have met the extraordinary circumstances required to A-2679-23 8 be granted leave to file a late notice of tort claim; and (3) the record does not support the motion court's finding Rutgers did not suffer prej | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mendez v. SOUTH JERSEY TRANSP.
green
1 sentence2021Mendez, 416 N.J. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Lebron v. Sanchez
green
1 sentence2020A-3113-17T1 21 has been given in a way, which . . . substantially satisfies the purposes for which notices of claims are required." Lebron, 407 N.J. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Iaconianni v. NJ Turnpike Auth.
green
1 sentence2020Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Allen v. Krause
green
2 sentences2011In order for that motion to succeed, Rogers had to demonstrate that defendants would not be “substantially prejudiced” and that “extraordinary circumstances” caused his failure to file a timely notice: Permission to file a late notice of claim requires a showing (1) that the public entity or public employee will not be “substantially prejudiced” by the granting of such permission; and (2) that there are sufficient reasons, based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, constituting “extraordinary circumstances” for the failure to file a notice of claim within the ninety-day window prescribe 2011In order for that motion to succeed, Rogers had to demonstrate that defendants would not be “substantially prejudiced” and that “extraordinary circumstances” caused his failure to file a timely notice: Permission to file a late notice of claim requires a showing (1) that the public entity or public employee will not be “substantially prejudiced” by the granting of such permission; and (2) that there are sufficient reasons, based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant, constituting “extraordinary circumstances” for the failure to file a notice of claim within the ninety-day window prescribe | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home
green
2 sentences2010It is clear, however, the court granted relief to plaintiffs based on demonstrations of "extraordinary circumstances" under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. [3] Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(3), effective September 1, 2006, superseding Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home, 182 N.J. 507 , 867 A. 2d 1174 (2005), the list of appealable orders now includes orders deciding motions for leave to file a late notice of tort claim against a public entity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. [4] At oral argument, Mendez's attorney informed us that Mendez's vehicle has been stored in the wrecked condition. 2010It is clear, however, the court granted relief to plaintiffs based on demonstrations of "extraordinary circumstances" under N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. [3] Pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(a)(3), effective September 1, 2006, superseding Moon v. Warren Haven Nursing Home, 182 N.J. 507 , 867 A. 2d 1174 (2005), the list of appealable orders now includes orders deciding motions for leave to file a late notice of tort claim against a public entity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. [4] At oral argument, Mendez's attorney informed us that Mendez's vehicle has been stored in the wrecked condition. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wood v. County of Burlington
green
2 sentences2008Of course, the absence of such explanation or proof of due diligence in the record precludes plaintiff from satisfying N.J.S.A. 59:8-9's other requirement that a claimant file a late notice of tort claim within "a reasonable time." See, e.g., Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 356 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998); Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J.Super. 371, 380 , 695 A. 2d 377 (App.Div.1997). 2008Of course, the absence of such explanation or proof of due diligence in the record precludes plaintiff from satisfying N.J.S.A. 59:8-9's other requirement that a claimant file a late notice of tort claim within "a reasonable time." See, e.g., Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 356 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998); Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J.Super. 371, 380 , 695 A. 2d 377 (App.Div.1997). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Epstein v. State
green
2 sentences2008Of course, the absence of such explanation or proof of due diligence in the record precludes plaintiff from satisfying N.J.S.A. 59:8-9's other requirement that a claimant file a late notice of tort claim within "a reasonable time." See, e.g., Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 356 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998); Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J.Super. 371, 380 , 695 A. 2d 377 (App.Div.1997). 2008Of course, the absence of such explanation or proof of due diligence in the record precludes plaintiff from satisfying N.J.S.A. 59:8-9's other requirement that a claimant file a late notice of tort claim within "a reasonable time." See, e.g., Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 356 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998); Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J.Super. 371, 380 , 695 A. 2d 377 (App.Div.1997). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Doss
green
1 sentence2008Of course, the absence of such explanation or proof of due diligence in the record precludes plaintiff from satisfying N.J.S.A. 59:8-9's other requirement that a claimant file a late notice of tort claim within "a reasonable time." See, e.g., Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 356 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998); Wood v. County of Burlington, 302 N.J.Super. 371, 380 , 695 A. 2d 377 (App.Div.1997). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ventola v. NJ VET'S MEMORIAL HOME
green
2 sentences2008Nevertheless, in permitting the late notice of tort claim, id. at 83, 751 A. 2d 559 , the Court found "(1) the dominant agency in providing veterans' benefits is the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs;" (2) the relationship between the veterans' memorial homes and the Veterans' Administration is close; and (3) "in every respect other than their appreciation of the role of the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, the Ventolas were diligent in prosecution of their claims." Id. at 82, 751 A. 2d 559 . 2008Nevertheless, in permitting the late notice of tort claim, id. at 83, 751 A. 2d 559 , the Court found "(1) the dominant agency in providing veterans' benefits is the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs;" (2) the relationship between the veterans' memorial homes and the Veterans' Administration is close; and (3) "in every respect other than their appreciation of the role of the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, the Ventolas were diligent in prosecution of their claims." Id. at 82, 751 A. 2d 559 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.