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 1912–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bombace v. City of Newarkgreen2 sentences2021The TCA “was clearly intended to reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception.” Ibid. 2020See Bombace v. City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 372 (1991) (recognizing the TCA is to "reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception"). | 4 | 11 |
Kolitch v. Lindedahlgreen2 sentences2017Immunity is the legislation's "dominant consideration." Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485, 498 (1985) (O'Hern, J., concurring). 1993As this Court frequently has recognized, “ ‘immunity is the dominant consideration of the Act.’ ” Rochinsky, supra, 110 N.J. at 408 , 541 A.2d 1029 (quoting Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485, 498 , 497 A.2d 183 (1985) (O’Hern, J., concurring). | 2 | 3 |
Tice v. Cramergreen2 sentences2021“When both liability and immunity appear to exist, the latter trumps the former.” Tice v. Cramer, 133 N.J. 347, 356 (1993). 1995“When both liability and immunity appear to exist, the latter trumps the former.” Tice, supra, 133 N.J. at 356 , 627 A.2d 1090 ; Rochinsky v. New Jersey Dep’t of Transp., 110 N.J. 399, 408 , 541 A.2d 1029 (1988). | 1 | 2 |
Robinson v. Cahillgreen2 sentences2011Cf. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 513 , 303 A. 2d 273 ("A system of instruction in any district of the State which is not thorough and efficient falls short of the constitutional command."). 2011Cf. Robinson I, supra, 62 N.J. at 513 , 303 A. 2d 273 ("A system of instruction in any district of the State which is not thorough and efficient falls short of the constitutional command."). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rochinsky v. State of NJ, Dept. of Transp.
green
2 sentences1995“When both liability and immunity appear to exist, the latter trumps the former.” Tice, supra, 133 N.J. at 356 , 627 A.2d 1090 ; Rochinsky v. New Jersey Dep’t of Transp., 110 N.J. 399, 408 , 541 A.2d 1029 (1988). 1995“When both liability and immunity appear to exist, the latter trumps the former.” Tice, supra, 133 N.J. at 356 , 627 A.2d 1090 ; Rochinsky v. New Jersey Dep’t of Transp., 110 N.J. 399, 408 , 541 A.2d 1029 (1988). | 2 | 1993–1995 |
Chatman v. Hall
green
2 sentences1993N.J.S.A. 59:2-1; Chatman v. Hall, 128 N.J. 394, 402 , 608 A. 2d 263 (1992); see Bombace v. City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 372 , 593 A. 2d 335 (1991) (noting Act is intended "to reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception"). 1993N.J.S.A. 59:2-1; Chatman v. Hall, 128 N.J. 394, 402 , 608 A. 2d 263 (1992); see Bombace v. City of Newark, 125 N.J. 361, 372 , 593 A. 2d 335 (1991) (noting Act is intended "to reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception"). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Willis v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev.
green
2 sentences1991Following this Court’s decision in Willis v. Department of Conservation & Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 537-41 , 264 A. 2d 34 (1970), which overruled the centuries-old common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity in tort, the Act was clearly intended to Reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception. 1991Following this Court’s decision in Willis v. Department of Conservation & Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 537-41 , 264 A. 2d 34 (1970), which overruled the centuries-old common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity in tort, the Act was clearly intended to Reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Malloy v. State
green
2 sentences1991See Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485 , 491 n. 4, 492 & n. 5, 497 A. 2d 183 (1985); Malloy v. State, 76 N.J. 515, 518-19 , 388 A.2d 622 (1978); N.J.S.A. 59:1-2; J. 1991See Kolitch v. Lindedahl, 100 N.J. 485 , 491 n. 4, 492 & n. 5, 497 A. 2d 183 (1985); Malloy v. State, 76 N.J. 515, 518-19 , 388 A.2d 622 (1978); N.J.S.A. 59:1-2; J. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Henrikson v. United States
green
1 sentence1978Dickey v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1973). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Textile Workers Union v. Kayser-Roth Corp.
green
1 sentence1978Dickey v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1973). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Holliday v. G. H. Pegram & Co.
green
1 sentence1978Dickey v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1973). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Belleville Stone Co. v. Mooney
neutral
2 sentences1912The case is wholly lacking, therefore, in the element of a system of warnings having been established and upon which consequently the party injured had a right to rely, as in Belleville Stone Co. v. Mooney, 32 Vroom 253 , and in Harmer v. Reed Apartment Co., 39 Id. 332 , which, although not a master and servant case, is illustrative of this principle; and it is also equally lacking in the element of an “exceptional” or “extraordinary” condition requiring the establishment of a system of warnings, as in Ondis v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 53 Id. 511. 1912The case is wholly lacking, therefore, in the element of a system of warnings having been established and upon which consequently the party injured had a right to rely, as in Belleville Stone Co. v. Mooney, 32 Vroom 253 , and in Harmer v. Reed Apartment Co., 39 Id. 332 , which, although not a master and servant case, is illustrative of this principle; and it is also equally lacking in the element of an “exceptional” or “extraordinary” condition requiring the establishment of a system of warnings, as in Ondis v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 53 Id. 511. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.
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.