12 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1926–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Werfel v. Kramarskygreen2 sentences2004See Werfel v. Kramarsky, 61 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (holding class action superior where individual claims do not warrant separate suits). 1993See Werfel v. Kramarsky, 61 F.R.D. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (holding class action superior where individual claims do not warrant separate suits). | 2 | 2 |
PV Ex Rel. TV v. Camp Jayceegreen1 sentence2025We are guided by the Court's opinion in P.V. v. Camp Jaycee, 197 N.J. 132, 142-43 (2008), where the Court held that Pennsylvania law was appropriately applied in a similar choice-of-law analysis. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mierzwickigreen1 sentence1981For example, in U.S. v. Mierzwicki, 500 F. Supp. 1331, 1334 (D.Md. 1980), it was held that an authorization made by the client to counsel permitting counsel to deal with the adversary *63 in order to effect a favorable conclusion of the action, would be deemed a waiver as to disclosures made. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrew McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roach, Inc.(076524)
green
2 sentences2025Supp. 1989).] A-2179-23 7 "Under section 142(2)(a), the statute of limitations of the forum state generally applies whenever that state has a substantial interest in the maintenance of the claim." McCarrell, 227 N.J. at 593 . 2025"Only when the forum state has 'no substantial interest' in the maintenance of the claim does a court consider section 142(2)(b)—whether 'the claim would be barred under the statute of limitations of a state having a more significant relationship to the parties and the occurrence.'" Ibid. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of L. § 142(2)(a)-(b)). | 7 | 2017–2025 |
In re Lanuto
green
2 sentences2018Law Inst. 1971).] "Under Section 142(2)(a), the statute of limitations of the forum state generally applies whenever that state has a substantial interest in the maintenance of the claim." McCarrell , 227 N.J. at 593 , 153 A.3d 207 . " Section 142's presumption in favor of a forum state with a substantial interest in the litigation can be overcome only by exceptional circumstances that would render that result unreasonable." Id. at 596 , 153 A.3d 207 . 2018Law Inst. 1971).] "Under Section 142(2)(a), the statute of limitations of the forum state generally applies whenever that state has a substantial interest in the maintenance of the claim." McCarrell , 227 N.J. at 593 , 153 A.3d 207 . " Section 142's presumption in favor of a forum state with a substantial interest in the litigation can be overcome only by exceptional circumstances that would render that result unreasonable." Id. at 596 , 153 A.3d 207 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rodermund v. . Clark
green
1 sentence1944Eq. 563 (at p. 568 ), the court says: "A comprehensive statement of the effect of an election is given in 20 Corp. Jur. 38 , thus: `An election once made between co-existing remedial rights which are inconsistent is not only irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn without due consent even though it has not been acted upon by another to his detriment, but it is also conclusive and constitutes an absolute bar to any action, suit or proceedings based upon a remedial right inconsistent with that asserted by the election or to the maintenance of a defense founded on such inconsistent rights.' Chancello | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Connihan v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1926Ch. 416 , put it in this way: "Any decisive act of the party, with knowledge of his rights, and of the fact, determines his election in the case of conflicting and inconsistent remedies." In Connihan v. Thompson, 111 Mass. 270 , it is said that "the defense of waiver by election arises when the remedies are inconsistent, as where one action is founded on an affirmance and the other upon the disaffirmance of a voidable contract, or sale of property. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.