14 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
RWB Newton Associates v. Gunngreen2 sentences1996Id.; RWB Newton Assoc. v. Gunn, 224 N.J.Super. 704, 709-710 , 541 A.2d 280 (App.Div.1988). 1996Id.; RWB Newton Assoc. v. Gunn, 224 N.J.Super. 704, 709-710 , 541 A.2d 280 (App.Div.1988). | 1 | 2 |
Szeles v. Venagreen1 sentence2021Georgas certified that he "appeared in court for a Marini hearing on September 21, 2017." Under Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970), "the breach of an implied warranty of habitability or covenant to repair could be used by a tenant in defense of an eviction action where defects have been asserted as a defense to nonpayment of rent or as a basis for withholding of rental payments." Szeles v. Vena, 321 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Korolgreen1 sentence2019See Cohen v. Korol, 9 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
STATE BY HIGHWAY COMM'R v. Gallantgreen1 sentence2019State Highway Comm'r v. Gallant, 42 N.J. 583, 588 (1964).] In J. & F. Holding, we said, "a tenant may not claim from the award damages for his loss of business, profits, good will, fixtures, cost of removal and the like." 40 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Developmentgreen1 sentence1993See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437f(d)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added), in which a landlord may evict a tenant for a violation of "any applicable Federal, State or local law." See also Mitchell v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, 569 F. Supp. 701 , 709 n. 3 (N.D.Cal. 1983) (the provision "is intended to minimize the disturbance of the private relationship under State law between the unit owner and the tenant" (citing S.Rep. 97-139, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 256, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1981, 396, 552). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marini v. Ireland
green
2 sentences2021Georgas certified that he "appeared in court for a Marini hearing on September 21, 2017." Under Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970), "the breach of an implied warranty of habitability or covenant to repair could be used by a tenant in defense of an eviction action where defects have been asserted as a defense to nonpayment of rent or as a basis for withholding of rental payments." Szeles v. Vena, 321 N.J. 2020The parties also agreed that $2101.25 of the escrow funds would be paid to 1 Marini v. Ireland, 56 N.J. 130 (1970) (holding that the breach of an implied warranty of habitability or covenant to repair may be used by a tenant as a defense in an eviction action based upon non-payment of rent where defects have been asserted as a basis for withholding of rental payments). | 3 | 1999–2021 |
Schooley v. Wilker
green
2 sentences1985The fact that [the landlord] was able to rent the property at an increased rental is no reason why she should not recover the rent for the two months the building was vacant * * *. [ 145 N.E. at 588 .] In Schooley v. Wilker, 33 Ohio App. 462 , 169 N.E. 829 (Ct.App. 1929), the court denied the tenant's claim for excess rent, and questioned: * * * by what parity of reasoning can the old tenant claim the benefit of a higher rent to a new tenant? 1985The fact that [the landlord] was able to rent the property at an increased rental is no reason why she should not recover the rent for the two months the building was vacant * * *. [ 145 N.E. at 588 .] In Schooley v. Wilker, 33 Ohio App. 462 , 169 N.E. 829 (Ct.App. 1929), the court denied the tenant's claim for excess rent, and questioned: * * * by what parity of reasoning can the old tenant claim the benefit of a higher rent to a new tenant? | 2 | 1985–1985 |
NJ Highway Authority v. J. & F. HOLDING CO.
green
1 sentence2019State Highway Comm'r v. Gallant, 42 N.J. 583, 588 (1964).] In J. & F. Holding, we said, "a tenant may not claim from the award damages for his loss of business, profits, good will, fixtures, cost of removal and the like." 40 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
447 ASSOCIATES v. Miranda
green
2 sentences2013W Assocs., supra, 115 N.J. at 529-31 , 559 A.2d 1362 . 2013W Assocs., supra, 115 N.J. at 529-31 , 559 A.2d 1362 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Thus, in *1068 Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 48, 55 , 301 A. 2d 463 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 63 N.J. 577 , 311 A. 2d 1 (1973), we held that the Marini concept was not intended to overturn existing principles of law applicable to tort actions for personal injuries by tenants against landlords. 1999Thus, in *1068 Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 48, 55 , 301 A. 2d 463 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 63 N.J. 577 , 311 A. 2d 1 (1973), we held that the Marini concept was not intended to overturn existing principles of law applicable to tort actions for personal injuries by tenants against landlords. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Thus, in *1068 Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 48, 55 , 301 A. 2d 463 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 63 N.J. 577 , 311 A. 2d 1 (1973), we held that the Marini concept was not intended to overturn existing principles of law applicable to tort actions for personal injuries by tenants against landlords. 1999Thus, in *1068 Dwyer v. Skyline Apartments, Inc., 123 N.J.Super. 48, 55 , 301 A. 2d 463 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b., 63 N.J. 577 , 311 A. 2d 1 (1973), we held that the Marini concept was not intended to overturn existing principles of law applicable to tort actions for personal injuries by tenants against landlords. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Trick v. Eckhouse
green
1 sentence1985The fact that [the landlord] was able to rent the property at an increased rental is no reason why she should not recover the rent for the two months the building was vacant * * *. [ 145 N.E. at 588 .] In Schooley v. Wilker, 33 Ohio App. 462 , 169 N.E. 829 (Ct.App. 1929), the court denied the tenant's claim for excess rent, and questioned: * * * by what parity of reasoning can the old tenant claim the benefit of a higher rent to a new tenant? | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ash v. Mestice
neutral
1 sentence1958Moreover, the statute was approved July 7, 1953, two months after the decision was rendered in Ash v. Mestice, supra , and the precise section was amended by L. 1956, c. 76, p. 163. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Newark v. Eisner
green
1 sentence1956City of Newark v. Cook, supra ; City of Newark v. Eisner, 100 N.J. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Newark v. Cook
green
1 sentence1956City of Newark v. Cook, supra ; City of Newark v. Eisner, 100 N.J. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Hunter v. Reiley
neutral
1 sentence1952Hunter v. Reiley, 43 N.J.L. 480 ( Sup. Ct. 1881). | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.