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 1956–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Joseph Vanderslice v. Harold Stewart and Camden County (073362)green2 sentences2024See Vanderslice, 220 N.J. at 391 (recognizing that "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time" (quoting Flett Assocs., 361 N.J. 2024See Vanderslice, 220 N.J. at 391 (recognizing that "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time" (quoting Flett Assocs., 361 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
Flett Associates v. SD CATALANOgreen2 sentences2024See Vanderslice, 220 N.J. at 391 (recognizing that "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time" (quoting Flett Assocs., 361 N.J. 2024See Vanderslice, 220 N.J. at 391 (recognizing that "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time" (quoting Flett Assocs., 361 N.J. | 2 | 4 |
Nascimento v. Kinggreen2 sentences2024This is so because "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time." Ibid.; see Nascimento, 381 N.J. 2024This is so because "a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the demand within time." Ibid.; see Nascimento, 381 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
Corcoran v. St. Peter's Med. Ctr.green2 sentences2005In Corcoran, supra, 339 N.J.Super. at 340-43 , 771 A. 2d 707 , we held that the doctrine of substantial compliance applied to the service requirement under R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). 2005In Corcoran, supra, 339 N.J.Super. at 340-43 , 771 A. 2d 707 , we held that the doctrine of substantial compliance applied to the service requirement under R. 4:21A-6(b)(1). | 1 | 3 |
Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, Inc.green1 sentence2018While the Supreme Court has found that the thirty-day period for filing a demand for a trial de novo may be relaxed only upon a showing of "extraordinary circumstances," Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, 149 N.J. 605, 609 (1997) (citing Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 618 (1997)), it also acknowledged our holding in Flett, stating that the panel "held correctly that, under the facts presented, 'a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the A-5225-16T4 17 dema | 1 | 1 |
Hartsfield v. Fantinigreen1 sentence2018While the Supreme Court has found that the thirty-day period for filing a demand for a trial de novo may be relaxed only upon a showing of "extraordinary circumstances," Wallace v. JFK Hartwyck at Oak Tree, 149 N.J. 605, 609 (1997) (citing Hartsfield v. Fantini, 149 N.J. 611, 618 (1997)), it also acknowledged our holding in Flett, stating that the panel "held correctly that, under the facts presented, 'a delay in satisfaction of the service requirement does not have the same deleterious effect upon efficient administration of the arbitration program as a failure to file the A-5225-16T4 17 dema | 1 | 1 |
State v. Giordanogreen1 sentence2000Court Rules, comment 13 on R. 4:4-4 (2000); see Roth v. Jackson, 99 N.J.Super. 546, 549-50 , 240 A. 2d 687 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 161 , 244 A. 2d 293 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Frank Briscoe Co. v. Suburban Trust Co.green1 sentence2000Court Rules, comment 13 on R. 4:4-4 (2000); see Roth v. Jackson, 99 N.J.Super. 546, 549-50 , 240 A. 2d 687 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 161 , 244 A. 2d 293 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Roth v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2000Court Rules, comment 13 on R. 4:4-4 (2000); see Roth v. Jackson, 99 N.J.Super. 546, 549-50 , 240 A. 2d 687 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 161 , 244 A. 2d 293 (1968). 2000Court Rules, comment 13 on R. 4:4-4 (2000); see Roth v. Jackson, 99 N.J.Super. 546, 549-50 , 240 A. 2d 687 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 52 N.J. 161 , 244 A. 2d 293 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Eule v. Eule Motor Salesgreen2 sentences1996See, e.g., Eule v. Eule Motor Sales, 34 N.J. 537, 545 , 170 A. 2d 241 (1961); X-L Liquors v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 456-457 , 111 A. 2d 753 (1955); Schultz v. Ziegenfuss, 105 N.J. 1996See, e.g., Eule v. Eule Motor Sales, 34 N.J. 537, 545 , 170 A. 2d 241 (1961); X-L Liquors v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 456-457 , 111 A. 2d 753 (1955); Schultz v. Ziegenfuss, 105 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alan J. Cornblatt, PA v. Barow
green
2 sentences2002Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239 , 708 A.2d 401 (1998) (quoting Bernstein v. Board of Trs. of Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 76-77 , 376 A.2d 563 (App.Div.1977)).] In Corcoran , we held that a defendant which mistakenly served its demand for a trial de novo upon plaintiffs original counsel instead of its substituted counsel had substantially complied with the service requirement of the court rule. 2002Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239 , 708 A.2d 401 (1998) (quoting Bernstein v. Board of Trs. of Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 76-77 , 376 A.2d 563 (App.Div.1977)).] In Corcoran , we held that a defendant which mistakenly served its demand for a trial de novo upon plaintiffs original counsel instead of its substituted counsel had substantially complied with the service requirement of the court rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bernstein v. BD. OF TRUST. TEACHERS'PEN. & ANN. FUND
green
2 sentences2002Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239 , 708 A.2d 401 (1998) (quoting Bernstein v. Board of Trs. of Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 76-77 , 376 A.2d 563 (App.Div.1977)).] In Corcoran , we held that a defendant which mistakenly served its demand for a trial de novo upon plaintiffs original counsel instead of its substituted counsel had substantially complied with the service requirement of the court rule. 2002Cornblatt, P.A. v. Barow, 153 N.J. 218, 239 , 708 A.2d 401 (1998) (quoting Bernstein v. Board of Trs. of Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 76-77 , 376 A.2d 563 (App.Div.1977)).] In Corcoran , we held that a defendant which mistakenly served its demand for a trial de novo upon plaintiffs original counsel instead of its substituted counsel had substantially complied with the service requirement of the court rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
X-L Liquors, Inc. v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1996See, e.g., Eule v. Eule Motor Sales, 34 N.J. 537, 545 , 170 A. 2d 241 (1961); X-L Liquors v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 456-457 , 111 A. 2d 753 (1955); Schultz v. Ziegenfuss, 105 N.J. 1996See, e.g., Eule v. Eule Motor Sales, 34 N.J. 537, 545 , 170 A. 2d 241 (1961); X-L Liquors v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 456-457 , 111 A. 2d 753 (1955); Schultz v. Ziegenfuss, 105 N.J. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Schultz v. Ziegenfuss
green
1 sentence1996See, e.g., Eule v. Eule Motor Sales, 34 N.J. 537, 545 , 170 A. 2d 241 (1961); X-L Liquors v. Taylor, 17 N.J. 444, 456-457 , 111 A. 2d 753 (1955); Schultz v. Ziegenfuss, 105 N.J. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
cluster 381371
green
2 sentences1980Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., supra, 628 F. 2d at 808 . "[T]he statutory tolling provision contemplates a much more significant corporate figure or presence — one capable of `representing' the corporation — than does the service rule." Ibid. 1980Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc., supra, 628 F. 2d at 808 . "[T]he statutory tolling provision contemplates a much more significant corporate figure or presence — one capable of `representing' the corporation — than does the service rule." Ibid. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Vadurro v. Yellow Cab Co. of Camden
green
1 sentence1956Of some pertinency is the decision in Vadurro v. Yellow Cab Co. of Camden, 6 N.J. 102 (1950). | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.