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 3 courts 1942–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spaeth v. Srinivasangreen2 sentences2021A "[w]aiver under New 16 A-4801-18 Jersey law 'involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right and thus it must be shown that the party charged with the waiver knew of his or her legal rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them.'" Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. 2019Waiver "involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right and thus it must be shown that the party charged with the waiver knew of his or her legal rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them." Spaeth v. Srinivasan, 403 N.J. | 4 | 4 |
West Jersey Title & Guaranty Co. v. Industrial Trust Co.green2 sentences1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi 1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi | 4 | 4 |
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Howard Savings Inst.green2 sentences1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi 1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi | 3 | 3 |
Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp.green2 sentences2026In Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp., 111 N.J. 276, 291 (1988), the Court described waiver as follows: Waiver, under New Jersey law, involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and thus it must be shown that the party charged with the waiver knew of [that party's] legal rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them. . . . [W]aiver implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which [one] might at [one's] option have demanded and insisted on. 2024In Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems Corp., 111 N.J. 276, 291 (1988), the Supreme Court described the concept of waiver as follows: Waiver, under New Jersey law, involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right, and thus it must be shown that the party charged with the waiver knew of [that party's] legal rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them. . . . [W]aiver implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which [one] might at [one's] option have demanded and insisted on. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Morgensteingreen2 sentences2025"Even within the setting of a civil controversy, it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them." State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J. 1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi | 2 | 2 |
Cole v. Jersey City Medical Centergreen1 sentence2026Questions of waiver, therefore, are usually questions of intent. . . . [Ibid. (quotations omitted).] A-0723-24 10 Whether a party waived the enforcement of a forum selection clause is determined through a fact-sensitive analysis considering the factors set forth in Cole, where no one factor is dispositive. 215 N.J. 265, 280 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Maplewood v. Tannenhausgreen1 sentence1961Township of Maplewood v. Tannenhaus, 64 N.J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marino v. Marino
green
1 sentence2011Ibid. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Country Chevrolet v. N. Brunswick Planning Bd.
green
2 sentences1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi 1988See West Jersey Title Co. v. Industrial Trust Co., 27 N.J. 144, 153 (1958); Country Chevrolet, Inc. v. North Brunswick Planning Bd., 190 N.J.Super. 376 (App.Div.1983); see also State v. Morgenstein, 147 N.J.Super. 234, 238 (App.Div.1977) (“it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them”); Allstate v. Howard Savings Inst., 127 N.J.Super. 479, 488 (Ch.Div.1974) (waiver “ ‘implies an election by the party to dispense with something of value, or to forego some advantage which he might at his option have demanded and insi | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
green
2 sentences1977The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to Counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. [ 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. at 1023 ] Even within the setting of a civil controversy it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them. 1977The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to Counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. [ 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. at 1023 ] Even within the setting of a civil controversy it must affirmatively appear that the party charged with waiver knew his rights and deliberately intended to relinquish them. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Bergman v. Fortescue
neutral
2 sentences1942The burden of proving knowledge on the part of the party charged with the waiver is upon the party relying on it." See, also, Bergman v. Fortescue, 74 N.J. 1942Eq. 266 ; 69 Atl. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.