12 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Churchgreen2 sentences2017"The first is that the institution pleading the immunity, at the time in question, 'was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance.'" Ibid. (quoting Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J. 2014The first is that the institution pleading the immunity, at 17 A-4854-12T2 the time in question, "was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." The second is that the injured party must have been a direct recipient of those good works. [Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333, 350 (2003) (quoting Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J. | 4 | 9 |
Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Churchgreen2 sentences2017"The first is that the institution pleading the immunity, at the time in question, 'was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance.'" Ibid. (quoting Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J. 2014The first is that the institution pleading the immunity, at 17 A-4854-12T2 the time in question, "was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." The second is that the injured party must have been a direct recipient of those good works. [Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333, 350 (2003) (quoting Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
Roberts v. TBAAgreen1 sentence2014Super. 532, 536 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 38 N.J. 305 (1962)).] Our inquiry here focuses on the second of these prongs, which distinguishes between "persons benefiting from the charity," and persons who contribute to the charity "by virtue of their attendance or participation." Roberts v. Timber Birch- Broadmoore Athletic Ass'n, 371 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Bianchi v. South Park Presbyterian Churchgreen1 sentence1969See also Bianchi v. South Park Presbyterian Church, 123 N.J.L. 325 ( E. & A. 1939) (plaintiff a nonmember of a church society injured while attending Girl Scout meeting in church house); compare Book v. Aguth Achim Anchai of Freehold, N.J., 101 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Book v. Aguth Achim Anchai of Freehold, NJgreen1 sentence1969See also Bianchi v. South Park Presbyterian Church, 123 N.J.L. 325 ( E. & A. 1939) (plaintiff a nonmember of a church society injured while attending Girl Scout meeting in church house); compare Book v. Aguth Achim Anchai of Freehold, N.J., 101 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Boeckel v. Orange Memorial Hospitalgreen1 sentence1962Thus, in Boeckel v. Orange Memorial Hospital, 108 N.J.L. 453, 456 ( Sup. Ct. 1932), where plaintiff after visiting her daughter who was a patient at the hospital slipped and fell on a stairway, the court in upholding the immunity said: *537 "The opportunity afforded for [ plaintiff's ] attendance was part of the charitable service the defendant was rendering to suffering humanity. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church of New Brunswick
green
2 sentences2011Beneficiary status "[does] not depend upon a showing that the claimant personally received a benefit from the works of the charity," but rather "whether the institution pleading the immunity. . . was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J.Super. 532, 536 , 181 A. 2d 787 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 38 N.J. 305 , 184 A. 2d 419 (1962). 2011Beneficiary status "[does] not depend upon a showing that the claimant personally received a benefit from the works of the charity," but rather "whether the institution pleading the immunity. . . was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." Anasiewicz v. Sacred Heart Church, 74 N.J.Super. 532, 536 , 181 A. 2d 787 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 38 N.J. 305 , 184 A. 2d 419 (1962). | 5 | 1990–2017 |
Sommers v. Union Beach First Aid Squad
green
2 sentences2009We stated that the controlling test of beneficiary status is "whether the institution pleading the immunity, at the time in question was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." Id. at 431 , 354 A. 2d 347 . 2009We stated that the controlling test of beneficiary status is "whether the institution pleading the immunity, at the time in question was engaged in the performance of the charitable objectives it was organized to advance." Id. at 431 , 354 A. 2d 347 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.