14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp.green2 sentences2013"The sine qua non of a CEPA claim is not the actual occurrence of a violation of promulgated authority or public policy, but rather the existence of a reasonable belief to the effect that such authority or policy has been breached." Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 N.J. 1997“The sine qua non of a CEPA claim is not the actual occurrence of a violation of promulgated authority or public policy, but rather the existence of a reasonable belief to the effect that such authority or policy has been breached.” Mehlman, 291 N.J.Super. at 123 , 676 A.2d 1143 . | 1 | 2 |
Shotmeyer v. New Jersey Realty Title Insurancegreen1 sentence2025Co., 195 N.J. 72, 86-87 (2008)." The court reasoned "[w]here the plaintiff fails to prove the corporate officer was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the corporate violation or was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the violation but failed to do so, individual liability cannot be imposed." See Macysyn v. Hensler, 329 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
MacYsyn v. Henslergreen1 sentence2025Co., 195 N.J. 72, 86-87 (2008)." The court reasoned "[w]here the plaintiff fails to prove the corporate officer was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the corporate violation or was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the violation but failed to do so, individual liability cannot be imposed." See Macysyn v. Hensler, 329 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Richard Catena v. Raytheon Companygreen1 sentence2019See 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (e) (claims under the TILA must be brought "within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation"); Catena v. Raytheon Co., 447 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Patricia G. Smith, Debtor. Patricia G. Smith v. American Financial Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2014Nondisclosure is not a continuing violation for purposes of the statute of limitations.” In re Smith, 737 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Doria v. Ins. Co. of North Americagreen2 sentences2005They rely on Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America, 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69, 73-74 , 509 A. 2d 220 (App.Div.1986), the seminal decision on interpretation of the occurrence clause in insurance policies in New Jersey, as support for their analysis. 2005They rely on Doria v. Insurance Co. of North America, 210 N.J.Super. 67, 69, 73-74 , 509 A. 2d 220 (App.Div.1986), the seminal decision on interpretation of the occurrence clause in insurance policies in New Jersey, as support for their analysis. | 1 | 1 |
Brindley v. Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newarkgreen1 sentence1959Co., 35 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Twining v. New Jerseyred2 sentences1957In Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 91 , 29 S. Ct. 14 , 53 L. 1957In Twining v. State of New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 91 , 29 S. Ct. 14 , 53 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nicor, Inc. v. Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd.
green
2 sentences2013Nicor indicates the occurrence analysis in United States Gypsum might change if the insured’s liability is based on its installation of the materials. 307 Ill.Dec. 626 , 860 N.E.2d at 298-99 . 2013Nicor indicates the occurrence analysis in United States Gypsum might change if the insured’s liability is based on its installation of the materials. 307 Ill.Dec. 626 , 860 N.E.2d at 298-99 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp.
green
1 sentence2013Super. 98, 123 (App. Div. 1996), aff'd, 153 N.J. 163 (1998). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Insurance
green
2 sentences2003“The words are all familiar and easily understandable.” Id. at 457 , 650 A.2d 974 . 2003“The words are all familiar and easily understandable.” Id. at 457 , 650 A.2d 974 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State, Department of Environmental Protection v. Standard Tank
green
2 sentences2000In construing that language, this court has held that "there must be a showing that a corporate officer had actual responsibility for the condition resulting in the violation or was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the violation but failed to do so....[The officer must have been] in control of the events that result in the violation." State v. Standard Tank, 284 N.J.Super. 381, 403 , 665 A. 2d 753 (App.Div.1995). 2000In construing that language, this court has held that "there must be a showing that a corporate officer had actual responsibility for the condition resulting in the violation or was in a position to prevent the occurrence of the violation but failed to do so....[The officer must have been] in control of the events that result in the violation." State v. Standard Tank, 284 N.J.Super. 381, 403 , 665 A. 2d 753 (App.Div.1995). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
MacDougall v. Weichert
green
2 sentences1996And see MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 401 , 677 A. 2d 162 (1996). [3] It is undisputed that the doctors who participate in the clinical trials are not Knoll employees, neither are the participating patients, patients of Knoll. 1996And see MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 401 , 677 A. 2d 162 (1996). [3] It is undisputed that the doctors who participate in the clinical trials are not Knoll employees, neither are the participating patients, patients of Knoll. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
D'AGOSTINO v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 133 N.J. 516, 542 , 628 A. 2d 305 (1993); see Delran Educ. 1996D'Agostino v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 133 N.J. 516, 542 , 628 A. 2d 305 (1993); see Delran Educ. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ken-Lu Enterprises, Inc. v. Neal
green
2 sentences1978There is a split of authority on this issue outside this state. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1640 (e) reads as follows: Any action under this section may be brought in any United States District Court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation. *509 The leading case holding against the position of defendant is Ken-Lu Enterprises Inc. v. Neal, 29 N.C. 1978App. 78 , 223 S.E. 2d 831 (App. Ct. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 1002 , 97 S.Ct. 533 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 613 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
green
2 sentences1978App. 78 , 223 S.E. 2d 831 (App. Ct. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 1002 , 97 S.Ct. 533 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 613 (1976). 1978App. 78 , 223 S.E. 2d 831 (App. Ct. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 1002 , 97 S.Ct. 533 , 50 L.Ed. 2d 613 (1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.