10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gibbons v. Gibbonsgreen2 sentences2024A-2522-21 18 The exceptions to the general rule of prospective application are where: (1) when the Legislature intended retroactive application of the statute either expressly, as "stated in the language of the statute or in the pertinent legislative history," or implicitly, required retroactive application to "make the statute workable or to give it the most sensible interpretation"; (2) when the statute is "ameliorative or curative"; or (3) when the "expectations of the parties may warrant retroactive application . . . ." Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515, 522-23 (1981). 2024A-2522-21 18 The exceptions to the general rule of prospective application are where: (1) when the Legislature intended retroactive application of the statute either expressly, as "stated in the language of the statute or in the pertinent legislative history," or implicitly, required retroactive application to "make the statute workable or to give it the most sensible interpretation"; (2) when the statute is "ameliorative or curative"; or (3) when the "expectations of the parties may warrant retroactive application . . . ." Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515, 522-23 (1981). | 2 | 3 |
Street v. Universal Maritimegreen2 sentences2024"Under the second exception to the general rule, the term 'ameliorative' refers only to criminal laws that effect a reduction in a criminal penalty." Street v. Universal Mar., 300 N.J. 2024"Under the second exception to the general rule, the term 'ameliorative' refers only to criminal laws that effect a reduction in a criminal penalty." Street v. Universal Mar., 300 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Mavrikidis v. Petullogreen2 sentences1999See Mavrikidis v. Petullo, 153 N.J. 117, 133 , 707 A.2d 977 (1998). 1999See Mavrikidis v. Petullo, 153 N.J. 117, 133 , 707 A.2d 977 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Micieli v. Erie Railroad Co.green1 sentence1959In a later case it is said that "the basis for our application of the exceptions to the general rule [is] made to rest upon the conduct, the action of the parties with relation to the transportation of the workman to and from his work." Micieli v. Erie Railroad Co., 130 N.J.L. 448, 453 ( Sup. Ct. 1943), affirmed 131 N.J.L. 427 ( E. & A. 1944). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tarabokia v. Structure Tone
green
1 sentence2025Super. 103 (App. Div. 2012), the court was satisfied that the moving parties did not "provide equipment[,] . . . supervise the construction[,] . . . [or] supervise the work." The court found "Macq[uarie] and Kiewit were simply investors and had no direct connection to the plaintiff's employer KWM." Further, the court noted "NY[-]NJ Link retained KWM to build the . . . [p]roject, but did not retain control over the meetings and methods of KWM's work" and was "satisfied . . . there [could] be no basis . . . to find any of the moving parties potentially exposed to liability for the claims at issu | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Evanston Insurance v. Luko
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 296 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Meier v. D'AMBOSE
green
1 sentence2019We discussed the exceptions to the general rule further in Meier where we noted, regardless of the lease terms, a landlord retained a non-delegable duty to maintain fixtures over which the landlord had exclusive control and access. 419 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Micieli v. Erie Railroad Co.
green
1 sentence1959In a later case it is said that "the basis for our application of the exceptions to the general rule [is] made to rest upon the conduct, the action of the parties with relation to the transportation of the workman to and from his work." Micieli v. Erie Railroad Co., 130 N.J.L. 448, 453 ( Sup. Ct. 1943), affirmed 131 N.J.L. 427 ( E. & A. 1944). | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Tallon v. . Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
neutral
1 sentence1943Rep. 327 — a four to three decision), it is- clear that with us the basis for the application of the exceptions to the general rule is not made to rest upon such refinement as to whether the instrumentality of transportation employed is one of a private nature and for the exclusive use of the workman (Rubeo cases, supra; Laverty v. Ludington Man *453 agement, Inc., supra), or whether the instrumentality of transportation employed is of a public nature, and for the general use by the public (Fisher v. Tidewater Building Co., supra; Lehigh Navigation Coal Co. v. McGonnell, supra). | 1 | 1943–1943 |
State v. Raymond
green
1 sentence1896No relation between that house and the house at Asbury Park was alleged, either by intercommunication, relation between principal and branch, identity of management or even eotemporaneousness of existence, and the questions put were solely in the nature of a partial trial, with insufficient evidence and ho defence, of the charge made against the police captain in' New York. - The questions were clearly contrary to the principles laid down in the ease of State v. Raymond, 24 Vroom 260 , and do not come within any of the exceptions to the general rule which are enumerated and defined by citation | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.