untimely challenge (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

untimely challenge in New Jersey

14 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2024 4 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Wingate v. Estate of Ryangreen
nj · 1997 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Thus, the Uniform Parentage Act was not intended to affect the limitations period for actions to prove heirship. [ Wingate, supra, 149 N.J. at 240, 693 A2d 457 .] We concluded: Because our Parentage Act is modeled after the Uniform Parentage Act, and for the other reasons stated, we hold that the Legislature did not intend its 1991 amendment to change the Probate Code’s limitation on when claims can be filed thereunder for determination of heirship. [Ibid.] In a sense, Wingate is the flip-side of this case insofar as the twenty-three year statute of limitations in the Parentage Act was being u

2004Thus, the Uniform Parentage Act was not intended to affect the limitations period for actions to prove heirship. [ Wingate, supra, 149 N.J. at 240, 693 A2d 457 .] We concluded: Because our Parentage Act is modeled after the Uniform Parentage Act, and for the other reasons stated, we hold that the Legislature did not intend its 1991 amendment to change the Probate Code’s limitation on when claims can be filed thereunder for determination of heirship. [Ibid.] In a sense, Wingate is the flip-side of this case insofar as the twenty-three year statute of limitations in the Parentage Act was being u

22
State v. Del Finogreen
nj · 1985 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1986–1990
2 sentences

1990What constitutes good cause for delay will depend upon the circumstances. * * * Moreover, the merits of the underlying assertion must be persuasive if an untimely challenge is to be otherwise allowed for good cause. *563 [ Id. at 160-61 , 495 A. 2d 60 ].

1990What constitutes good cause for delay will depend upon the circumstances. * * * Moreover, the merits of the underlying assertion must be persuasive if an untimely challenge is to be otherwise allowed for good cause. [Id. at 160-61, 495 A.2d 60].

12
David W. Opderbeck v. Midland Park Board of Educationgreen
njsuperctappdiv · 2015 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020A-0320-19T1 11 N.J.S.A. 10:4-8(d).6 An agenda, as the term is used in the OPMA, is "a list or outline of things to be considered or done." Opderbeck v. Midland Park Bd. of Educ., 442 N.J.

11
University Cottage Club v. Princeton Boroughgreen
njtaxct · 2011 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See University Cottage Club of Princeton v. Borough of Princeton, 26 N.J.

11
Williams v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.green
nj · 1993 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See White, supra, 354 N.J.Super. at 290 , 806 A. 2d 843 (comparing pre-trial assertion of a new defense with post-verdict assertion in Williams, supra, 132 N.J. at 119-20 , 623 A. 2d 234 ).

2008See White, supra, 354 N.J.Super. at 290 , 806 A. 2d 843 (comparing pre-trial assertion of a new defense with post-verdict assertion in Williams, supra, 132 N.J. at 119-20 , 623 A. 2d 234 ).

11
White v. Karlssongreen
njsuperctappdiv · 2002 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See White, supra, 354 N.J.Super. at 290 , 806 A. 2d 843 (comparing pre-trial assertion of a new defense with post-verdict assertion in Williams, supra, 132 N.J. at 119-20 , 623 A. 2d 234 ).

2008See White, supra, 354 N.J.Super. at 290 , 806 A. 2d 843 (comparing pre-trial assertion of a new defense with post-verdict assertion in Williams, supra, 132 N.J. at 119-20 , 623 A. 2d 234 ).

11
Reed v. Rossgreen
scotus · 1984 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

CaseCitedYears
Roa v. Roa green
nj · 2010
2 sentences

2021He argued some of the gender-based actions taken by plaintiff's 4 Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (2010).

2021He argued some of the gender-based actions taken by plaintiff's 4 Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (2010).

22021–2021
GMAC v. Pittella green
nj · 2011
1 sentence

2024Our Supreme Court in GMAC warned: as of [March 23, 2011], litigants and lawyers in New Jersey are on notice that all orders compelling and denying arbitration shall be deemed final for purposes of appeal, regardless of whether such orders dispose of all issues and all parties, and the time for appeal therefrom starts from the date of the entry of that order. [ 205 N.J. at 587 .] A-0188-23 5 Plaintiff failed to file an appeal of the order within forty-five days pursuant to Rule 2:4-1(a), and therefore he is precluded from raising this untimely challenge now.

12024–2024
Southport Development Group, Inc. v. Township of Wall green
njsuperctappdiv · 1998
1 sentence

2021Id. at 556 .

12021–2021
Prime Accounting Department v. Township of Carney's Point green
njsuperctappdiv · 2011
1 sentence

2018Ibid. “[N]o other pleading is allowed, 1 Evidently, this rule does not, and cannot, permit an amendment to assert an untimely claim or cause of action.

12018–2018
F.M.C. Stores Co. v. Borough of Morris Plains green
nj · 1985
1 sentence

2015Stores, supra, 100 N.J. at 425, 495 A.2d 1313 ; does not comply with tax payment requirements, N.J.S.A. 54:3-27; N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b); Dover-Chester Assocs. v. Township of Randolph, 419 N.J.Super. 184, 190 , 16 A.3d 467 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 338 , 27 A.3d 951 (2011); does not respond to discovery requests, R. 4:23- 5; or fails during its case-in-ehief to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessment, even though the assessment may be excessive, Pantasote Co., supra. In each of these instances, the Uniformity Clause does not mandate that the assessment must be r

12015–2015
DOVER-CHESTER ASSOC. v. Randolph green
njsuperctappdiv · 2011
2 sentences

2015Stores, supra, 100 N.J. at 425, 495 A.2d 1313 ; does not comply with tax payment requirements, N.J.S.A. 54:3-27; N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b); Dover-Chester Assocs. v. Township of Randolph, 419 N.J.Super. 184, 190 , 16 A.3d 467 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 338 , 27 A.3d 951 (2011); does not respond to discovery requests, R. 4:23- 5; or fails during its case-in-ehief to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessment, even though the assessment may be excessive, Pantasote Co., supra. In each of these instances, the Uniformity Clause does not mandate that the assessment must be r

2015Stores, supra, 100 N.J. at 425, 495 A.2d 1313 ; does not comply with tax payment requirements, N.J.S.A. 54:3-27; N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b); Dover-Chester Assocs. v. Township of Randolph, 419 N.J.Super. 184, 190 , 16 A.3d 467 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 338 , 27 A.3d 951 (2011); does not respond to discovery requests, R. 4:23- 5; or fails during its case-in-ehief to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessment, even though the assessment may be excessive, Pantasote Co., supra. In each of these instances, the Uniformity Clause does not mandate that the assessment must be r

12015–2015
Miller v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM neutral
nj · 2011
1 sentence

2015Stores, supra, 100 N.J. at 425, 495 A.2d 1313 ; does not comply with tax payment requirements, N.J.S.A. 54:3-27; N.J.S.A. 54:51A-1(b); Dover-Chester Assocs. v. Township of Randolph, 419 N.J.Super. 184, 190 , 16 A.3d 467 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 338 , 27 A.3d 951 (2011); does not respond to discovery requests, R. 4:23- 5; or fails during its case-in-ehief to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessment, even though the assessment may be excessive, Pantasote Co., supra. In each of these instances, the Uniformity Clause does not mandate that the assessment must be r

12015–2015
Division of State Police v. Maguire green
njsuperctappdiv · 2004
1 sentence

2005Ibid. [3] On appeal, Grubb abandoned this issue.

12005–2005
State v. McKnight green
nj · 1968
1 sentence

1990What constitutes good cause for delay will depend upon the circumstances. * * * Moreover, the merits of the underlying assertion must be persuasive if an untimely challenge is to be otherwise allowed for good cause. *563 [ Id. at 160-61 , 495 A. 2d 60 ].

11990–1990
United States v. Mechanik green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

1986In Mechanik , the United States Supreme Court held that an error in the grand jury proceeding connected with the *600 charging decision is rendered harmless by a supervening guilty verdict. ___ U.S. at ___-___, 106 S.Ct. at 941-944 , 89 L.Ed. 2d at 56-58 .

1986In Mechanik , the United States Supreme Court held that an error in the grand jury proceeding connected with the *600 charging decision is rendered harmless by a supervening guilty verdict. ___ U.S. at ___-___, 106 S.Ct. at 941-944 , 89 L.Ed. 2d at 56-58 .

11986–1986
Brutscher v. Borough of Avalon neutral
nj · 1974
2 sentences

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

11985–1985
State v. Allaband green
njsuperctappdiv · 1974
2 sentences

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

11985–1985
State v. Hughes green
njsuperctappdiv · 1974
2 sentences

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

1985See Reed v. Ross, — U.S.-, 104 S. Ct. 2901 , 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (presence of novel legal issue contributes to finding of good cause for failure to raise issue in state court proceedings); State v. Allaband, 134 N.J.Super. 353 (App.Div.1974) (motion to suppress evidence after eleven-month delay without more will not justify good cause to accept belated challenge); State v. Hughes, 128 N.J.Super. 363 (App.Div.), certif. den., 66 N.J. 307 (1974) (failure to show invidious discrimination against blacks in the grand jury indicting defendant part of lack of good cause to raise an untimely challenge

11985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 10:5-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 31 (1986–2026) CA 31 (1991–2025) FL 26 (1983–2023) NY 20 (1974–2025) AZ 17 (1982–2024) IN 15 (1974–2019) NJ 14 (1985–2024) IL 12 (1995–2025) WA 10 (2004–2024) MN 9 (2006–2024) TX 8 (1974–2026) DC 7 (2006–2024) CO 7 (1984–2026) OR 6 (1994–2026) UT 6 (2007–2022) IA 5 (1981–2024) MI 5 (2011–2020) MD 5 (1977–2022) HI 5 (2010–2025) MO 5 (1998–2020) OH 4 (2000–2016) ND 4 (1989–2014) AL 4 (1983–2014) TN 4 (1999–2019) VA 4 (2007–2023) GA 4 (1981–2020) LA 3 (2000–2021) NM 3 (1997–2021) ID 2 (2019–2024) DE 2 (2021–2023) CT 2 (2004–2015) AK 2 (2006–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check