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.
11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holloway v. Stategreen2 sentences2002In a series of 1991 opinions, we abolished the nullum tempus doctrine “insofar as it would preclude the application of general statutes of limitations to the State.” Gruzen Partnership, supra, 125 N.J. at 76 , 592 A.2d 559 ; see also Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386, 397 , 593 A.2d 716 (1991) (recognizing abolishment of nullum tempus doctrine); Devins, supra, 124 N.J. at 579 , 592 A.2d 199 (abolishing nullum tempus doctrine as to municipally-owned real estate not dedicated to or used for a public purpose). 2002In a series of 1991 opinions, we abolished the nullum tempus doctrine “insofar as it would preclude the application of general statutes of limitations to the State.” Gruzen Partnership, supra, 125 N.J. at 76 , 592 A.2d 559 ; see also Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386, 397 , 593 A.2d 716 (1991) (recognizing abolishment of nullum tempus doctrine); Devins, supra, 124 N.J. at 579 , 592 A.2d 199 (abolishing nullum tempus doctrine as to municipally-owned real estate not dedicated to or used for a public purpose). | 2 | 3 |
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority v. Gruzen Partnershipgreen2 sentences2002In a series of 1991 opinions, we abolished the nullum tempus doctrine “insofar as it would preclude the application of general statutes of limitations to the State.” Gruzen Partnership, supra, 125 N.J. at 76 , 592 A.2d 559 ; see also Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386, 397 , 593 A.2d 716 (1991) (recognizing abolishment of nullum tempus doctrine); Devins, supra, 124 N.J. at 579 , 592 A.2d 199 (abolishing nullum tempus doctrine as to municipally-owned real estate not dedicated to or used for a public purpose). 2002In a series of 1991 opinions, we abolished the nullum tempus doctrine “insofar as it would preclude the application of general statutes of limitations to the State.” Gruzen Partnership, supra, 125 N.J. at 76 , 592 A.2d 559 ; see also Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386, 397 , 593 A.2d 716 (1991) (recognizing abolishment of nullum tempus doctrine); Devins, supra, 124 N.J. at 579 , 592 A.2d 199 (abolishing nullum tempus doctrine as to municipally-owned real estate not dedicated to or used for a public purpose). | 1 | 4 |
United States v. Thompsongreen2 sentences1989"In a representative government, where the people do not and cannot act in a body, where their power is delegated to others, and must of necessity be exercised by them, if exercised at all, the reason for applying these principles is equally cogent." [ United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489 , 25 L.Ed. 194, 195 (1879).] Simply stated, the doctrine of nullum tempus provides that "the statute of limitations does not run against the Sovereign...." 51 Am.Jur. 2d Limitation of Actions, supra, at § 409. 1989"In a representative government, where the people do not and cannot act in a body, where their power is delegated to others, and must of necessity be exercised by them, if exercised at all, the reason for applying these principles is equally cogent." [ United States v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486, 489 , 25 L.Ed. 194, 195 (1879).] Simply stated, the doctrine of nullum tempus provides that "the statute of limitations does not run against the Sovereign...." 51 Am.Jur. 2d Limitation of Actions, supra, at § 409. | 1 | 1 |
Tr., Public Sch. v. the Ott Brewergreen2 sentences1988It "springs from the superior and pre-eminent policy to preserve public rights, revenues and property from injury and loss otherwise resulting from the inadvertence or neglect of public agents." Trustees, etc., Public Schools v. The Ott and Brewer Co., 135 N.J. 1988As stated in Trustees, etc., Public Schools, 135 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 |
|---|---|---|
Devins v. Borough of Bogota
green
2 sentences2002Originally established in England and incorporated into American law after the colonial period, the nullum tempus doctrine was based on the theory that “the king was too busy protecting the interests of his people to keep track of his lands and to bring suits to protect them in a timely fashion.” Devins v. Borough of Bogota, 124 N.J. 570, 576 , 592 A.2d 199 (1991); New Jersey Educ. 2002Originally established in England and incorporated into American law after the colonial period, the nullum tempus doctrine was based on the theory that “the king was too busy protecting the interests of his people to keep track of his lands and to bring suits to protect them in a timely fashion.” Devins v. Borough of Bogota, 124 N.J. 570, 576 , 592 A.2d 199 (1991); New Jersey Educ. | 5 | 1991–2002 |
NJ ED. FACIL. v. Conditioning Co.
green
2 sentences2002Facilities Auth. v. Conditioning Co., 237 N.J.Super. 310, 316 , 567 A.2d 1013 (App. Div.1989), aff’d in part and rev’d in part sub nom, New Jersey Educ. 1993Super. 310 , 567 A. 2d 1013 , we held that, for purposes of the doctrine of nullum tempus, State colleges should be considered State agencies. | 3 | 1993–2002 |
State v. Scientific Coating Co.
green
2 sentences1991In its operation, NJEFA functions as “an arm of state government * * * entitled to assert the doctrine of nullum tempus.” State v. Scientific Coating Co., 228 N.J.Super. 320, 324 , 549 A.2d 874 (App.Div.1988). 1991In its operation, NJEFA functions as “an arm of state government * * * entitled to assert the doctrine of nullum tempus.” State v. Scientific Coating Co., 228 N.J.Super. 320, 324 , 549 A.2d 874 (App.Div.1988). | 3 | 1989–1993 |
Lacey Municipal Utilities Authority v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
neutral
2 sentences2001Auth. v. DEP, 312 N.J.Super. 298 , 711 A.2d 932 (App.Div.1998), aff'd as modified, 162 N.J. 30 , 738 A.2d 955 (1999), the DEP argues that the statute of limitations provision in the Fraudulent Transfer Act does not apply to the State because it cannot be shown that a shorter time limitation “expressly and specifically” applied to the State before the abrogation of the nullum tempus doctrine. 2001Auth. v. DEP, 312 N.J.Super. 298 , 711 A.2d 932 (App.Div.1998), aff'd as modified, 162 N.J. 30 , 738 A.2d 955 (1999), the DEP argues that the statute of limitations provision in the Fraudulent Transfer Act does not apply to the State because it cannot be shown that a shorter time limitation “expressly and specifically” applied to the State before the abrogation of the nullum tempus doctrine. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Lacey Mun. Util. Auth. v. NJ DEP
neutral
2 sentences2001Auth. v. DEP, 312 N.J.Super. 298 , 711 A.2d 932 (App.Div.1998), aff'd as modified, 162 N.J. 30 , 738 A.2d 955 (1999), the DEP argues that the statute of limitations provision in the Fraudulent Transfer Act does not apply to the State because it cannot be shown that a shorter time limitation “expressly and specifically” applied to the State before the abrogation of the nullum tempus doctrine. 2001Auth. v. DEP, 312 N.J.Super. 298 , 711 A.2d 932 (App.Div.1998), aff'd as modified, 162 N.J. 30 , 738 A.2d 955 (1999), the DEP argues that the statute of limitations provision in the Fraudulent Transfer Act does not apply to the State because it cannot be shown that a shorter time limitation “expressly and specifically” applied to the State before the abrogation of the nullum tempus doctrine. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
RUTGERS, STATE UNIV. OF NEW JERSEY v. Grad Partnership
neutral
1 sentence1995Super. 142 , 634 A. 2d 1053 (App.Div. 1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 470 , 640 A. 2d *244 851 (1994) and the doctrine of nullum tempus, which was extended by a Supreme Court order even though abrogated by the Court in N.J. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rutgers v. Grad Partnership
green
2 sentences1995Super. 142 , 634 A. 2d 1053 (App.Div. 1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 470 , 640 A. 2d *244 851 (1994) and the doctrine of nullum tempus, which was extended by a Supreme Court order even though abrogated by the Court in N.J. 1995We based our ruling on the notion that "[a]bsent inclusion either expressly or by implication of the State in a statute of limitations, nullum tempus operates so that such a statute, should not be read to affect adversely the State's rights." Rutgers, supra, 269 N.J. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Holloway v. State
green
2 sentences1991The Appellate Division determined that that claim was not dependent on any cause of action that Holloway had or might have had, and, applying the doctrine of nullum tempus, ruled that the claim was not time-barred. 239 N.J.Super. at 560-61 , 571 A.2d 1324 . 1991The Appellate Division determined that that claim was not dependent on any cause of action that Holloway had or might have had, and, applying the doctrine of nullum tempus, ruled that the claim was not time-barred. 239 N.J.Super. at 560-61 , 571 A.2d 1324 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Emanuel
neutral
1 sentence1988Super. 433 (App.Div. 1983), certif. den. 96 N.J. 308 (1984), should be limited to the proposition that a county college is not the kind of body which enjoys the appurtenances of sovereignty, and thus may not invoke the doctrine of nullum tempus. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.