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.
10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuckerman v. National Union Fire Insurancegreen2 sentences2017Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the Court did not limit its holding to cases where notice first occurred outside the policy period and it plainly stated that "[t]he Cooper doctrine" that requires prejudice to be shown for occurrence policies has "no application whatsoever to a 'claims made' policy . . . ." Zuckerman, supra, 100 N.J. at 324 (emphasis added). 2017Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the Court did not limit its holding to cases where notice first occurred outside the policy period and it plainly stated that "[t]he Cooper doctrine" that requires prejudice to be shown for occurrence policies has "no application whatsoever to a 'claims made' policy . . . ." Zuckerman, supra, 100 N.J. at 324 (emphasis added). | 3 | 4 |
Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Associatesgreen1 sentence2026He confirmed Nurse Macauley's involvement at Nurse Brocco's 4 In Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Associates, our Supreme Court established that an accelerated case management conference (also known as a Ferreira conference) should be conducted within ninety days of the filing of a defendant's answer in order to identify and address any issues concerning the AOM served or not served by a plaintiff. 178 N.J. 144, 154-55 (2003). 5 Thereafter, the Cooper defendants and Dr. Noel were dismissed, in an unopposed motion, due to plaintiff's failure to comply with the AOM statute. | 1 | 1 |
Sparks v. St. Paul Insurancegreen2 sentences2016See Sparks, 100 N.J. at 342 , 495 A.2d 406 (noting “total inapplicability of the Cooper doctrine to a true ‘claims made’ policy” in New Jersey). 2016See Sparks, 100 N.J. at 342 , 495 A.2d 406 (noting “total inapplicability of the Cooper doctrine to a true ‘claims made’ policy” in New Jersey). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Government Employees Insurancegreen2 sentences1985The evidence well supported the trial court’s finding that the insureds acted reasonably and in good faith and that therefore the notice provision was not breached. [Id., 51 N.J. at 94 (footnotes omitted).] Appellant would have us apply the Cooper doctrine to the “claims made” policy at issue here. 1985The evidence well supported the trial court’s finding that the insureds acted reasonably and in good faith and that therefore the notice provision was not breached. [Id., 51 N.J. at 94 (footnotes omitted).] Appellant would have us apply the Cooper doctrine to the “claims made” policy at issue here. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Holder v. Polanski
green
2 sentences1996However, the Cooper standard was subsequently modified in Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 344 , 544 A. 2d 852 (1988), by eliminating the requirement that the custodial parent show a real advantage to the move. 1996However, the Cooper standard was subsequently modified in Holder v. Polanski, 111 N.J. 344 , 544 A. 2d 852 (1988), by eliminating the requirement that the custodial parent show a real advantage to the move. | 2 | 1996–2001 |
Werner Industries, Inc. v. First State Insurance
green
2 sentences2016Subsequently, in Werner Industries, Inc. v. First State Insurance Co., this Court considered a “claims made” excess “umbrella” liability policy covering commercial risks entered into between sophisticated parties. 112 N.J. 30, 32 , 548 A.2d 188 (1988). 2016Subsequently, in Werner Industries, Inc. v. First State Insurance Co., this Court considered a “claims made” excess “umbrella” liability policy covering commercial risks entered into between sophisticated parties. 112 N.J. 30, 32 , 548 A.2d 188 (1988). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Voit v. Voit
green
2 sentences2000Voit, supra, 317 N.J.Super. at 118 , 721 A. 2d 317 . 2000Voit, supra, 317 N.J.Super. at 118 , 721 A. 2d 317 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Avemco Insurance Company v. Chung
green
2 sentences2000Co. v. Chung, 388 F.Supp. 142 (D.Hawai'i 1975). 2000Co. v. Chung, 388 F.Supp. 142 (D.Hawai'i 1975). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.