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.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
LaPlace v. Brieregreen2 sentences2024The tort of conversion "is the intentional exercise of dominion and control over chattel that seriously interferes with the right of another to control that chattel." Meisels v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 240 N.J. 286 , 305 (2020); see also LaPlace v. Briere, 404 N.J. 2018"Conversion is 'the wrongful exercise of dominion and control over property owned by another inconsistent with the owners' rights.'" LaPlace v. Briere, 404 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Battaglia v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green1 sentence2026See Battaglia v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 214 N.J. 518, 562 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
Dynasty Bldg. Corp. v. Ackermangreen1 sentence2018Corp. v. Ackerman, 376 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Lennongreen2 sentences2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th 2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th | 1 | 1 |
Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C.green2 sentences2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th 2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foxgreen1 sentence1958I am persuaded that the conversion of the rule from one to be charged for the guidance of the jury to one for the admeasurement of the proofs for sufficiency on a motion for acquittal, or by an appellate court on review of a conviction, see State v. Fox, 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bondi v. Citigroup, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Ibid. 2019Bondi, 423 N.J. | 3 | 2018–2021 |
Moshe Meisels v. Fox Rothschild LLP (081534) (Mercer County & Statewide)
green
1 sentence2024The tort of conversion "is the intentional exercise of dominion and control over chattel that seriously interferes with the right of another to control that chattel." Meisels v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 240 N.J. 286 , 305 (2020); see also LaPlace v. Briere, 404 N.J. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Meisels v. Fox Rothschild LLP
neutral
1 sentence2020The Appellate Division affirmed as to the fiduciary duty claim but reversed as to the conversion claim, rejecting defendants’ argument “that Meisels was required to show that he demanded the return of his property.” The Court granted defendants’ petition for certification, seeking review of the Appellate Division’s judgment reinstating the conversion claim. 236 N.J. 67 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank
green
2 sentences2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th 2012See Mid-Continent Specialists, Inc. v. Capital Homes, L.C., 279 Kan. 178 , 106 P. 3d 483 (2005) (holding that the UCC precludes a maker of a check from bringing an action for conversion where maker's employee issued check as part of a scheme to embezzle the drawer's funds); Halifax Corp. v. Wachovia Bank, 268 Va. 641 , 604 S.E. 2d 403 (2004) (holding that statute analogous to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) precludes a maker of a check from asserting a conversion claim against bank where check had a forged maker's signature); Simmons v. Lennon, 139 Md.App. 15 , 773 A. 2d 1064, 1072 (2001) (concluding th | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Leeds v. Chase Manhattan Bank
green
2 sentences2012Here, the motion judge also stated that her interpretation of N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) was supported by Leeds v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 331 N.J.Super. 416 , 752 A. 2d 332 (App.Div.2000). 2012Here, the motion judge also stated that her interpretation of N.J.S.A. 12A:3-420(a) was supported by Leeds v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 331 N.J.Super. 416 , 752 A. 2d 332 (App.Div.2000). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hirsch v. Phily
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 414 , 73 A.2d 173 . 2011Id. at 414 , 73 A.2d 173 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Garden Park Associates
green
2 sentences1998Plaintiffs rely on Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Association v. Garden Park Associates, 292 N.J.Super. 442 , 678 A.2d 1191 (Law Div.1996), aff'd, 305 N.J.Super. 52 , 701 A.2d 942 (App.Div.1997), in support of their argument that the fuel conversion requirement at issue here is unreasonable. 1998Plaintiffs rely on Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Association v. Garden Park Associates, 292 N.J.Super. 442 , 678 A.2d 1191 (Law Div.1996), aff'd, 305 N.J.Super. 52 , 701 A.2d 942 (App.Div.1997), in support of their argument that the fuel conversion requirement at issue here is unreasonable. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Ass'n v. Garden Park Associates
neutral
2 sentences1998Plaintiffs rely on Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Association v. Garden Park Associates, 292 N.J.Super. 442 , 678 A.2d 1191 (Law Div.1996), aff'd, 305 N.J.Super. 52 , 701 A.2d 942 (App.Div.1997), in support of their argument that the fuel conversion requirement at issue here is unreasonable. 1998Plaintiffs rely on Garden Park Mobile Home Owners Association v. Garden Park Associates, 292 N.J.Super. 442 , 678 A.2d 1191 (Law Div.1996), aff'd, 305 N.J.Super. 52 , 701 A.2d 942 (App.Div.1997), in support of their argument that the fuel conversion requirement at issue here is unreasonable. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Chemical Bank v. Miller Yacht Sales
green
1 sentence1986Id., 100 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
McGlynn v. Schultz
green
1 sentence1986The state of his knowledge with respect to the rights of such owner is of no importance, and cannot in any respect affect the case. [ 90 NJ.Super. 505, 526 (Ch.Div.1966) aff'd, 95 N.J.Super. 412 (App.Div.1967).] The defendant argues that the bank and auctioneer are both “innocent” parties who were duped by Mr. Koenig and the loss should fall on the bank since it is better able to absorb the financial loss. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.