10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Leegreen2 sentences2021It embodies the principle that the police power of the State may be invested in local government to enable local government to discharge its role as an arm or agency of the State and to meet other needs of the community." Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. 521, 528 (1973) (citing Bergen County v. Port of N.Y. 2020Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. 521, 528 (1973) (“Home rule is basic in our government.”). | 3 | 3 |
Neger v. Negergreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Neger v. Neger, 93 N.J. 15, 27-38 (1983) (remanding for a trial court to enforce a custody order issued by a California court that substantially conformed with the UCCJEA's home state analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Donvito v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2019A-1477-18T4 6 tutors are analogous to "home instructors" because both "act in the place of classroom teachers as a result of the students' absence from the classroom" and "are only needed because the regular classroom teachers are unable to provide the student with instruction during his or her absence." See Donvito v. Bd. of Educ. of N. Valley Regional High School Dist., 387 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eeb v. Da
green
2 sentences1998Even under this test, which may be utilized as an alternative to the home state analysis, E.E.B., supra, 89 N.J. at 609 , 446 A. 2d 871 , New Jersey would have prevailed. 1998Even under this test, which may be utilized as an alternative to the home state analysis, E.E.B., supra, 89 N.J. at 609 , 446 A. 2d 871 , New Jersey would have prevailed. | 2 | 1984–1998 |
Bless v. Bless
green
2 sentences2004In Bless , the court states “the ‘significant connection’ test of jurisdiction, may be resorted to even if another forum prevails under the home state analysis.” Bless, supra, 318 N.J.Super. at 102 , 723 A.2d at 73 . 2004In Bless , the court states “the ‘significant connection’ test of jurisdiction, may be resorted to even if another forum prevails under the home state analysis.” Bless, supra, 318 N.J.Super. at 102 , 723 A.2d at 73 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kennedy v. City of Newark
green
1 sentence1975In Kennedy v. Newark, 29 N.J. 178 (1959), where the court reversed a Law Division decision invalidating a Newark ordinance which required municipal employees to reside in the city as a condition for continuing employment, Chief Justice Weintraub identified the perspective which should be taken in analyzing legislative intent: * * * The action thus taken is wholly consistent with the thesis that the area not covered by legislation shall be left to local determination upon the principal of home rule. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Campbell v. Holt
green
2 sentences1949Law 502 , 110 Atl. 910 , our court of last resort declared (at p. 503): "The rule is institutional and fundamental that a party who has become released from a demand, by the operation of the statute, is protected against its revival by a change in the limitation law, the defence of the statute being considered a vested right * * *" *Page 453 It may well be conjectured that Justice Bradley was advocating the doctrine of his home state of New Jersey when in his dissenting opinion in Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 , 630 , 29 L.ed. 483 , 6 S.Ct. 209 , he said: "Now, an exemption from a demand, or 1949Law 502 , 110 Atl. 910 , our court of last resort declared (at p. 503): "The rule is institutional and fundamental that a party who has become released from a demand, by the operation of the statute, is protected against its revival by a change in the limitation law, the defence of the statute being considered a vested right * * *" *Page 453 It may well be conjectured that Justice Bradley was advocating the doctrine of his home state of New Jersey when in his dissenting opinion in Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 , 630 , 29 L.ed. 483 , 6 S.Ct. 209 , he said: "Now, an exemption from a demand, or | 1 | 1949–1949 |
P. Ballantine & Sons v. Macken
neutral
1 sentence1949Law 502 , 110 Atl. 910 , our court of last resort declared (at p. 503): "The rule is institutional and fundamental that a party who has become released from a demand, by the operation of the statute, is protected against its revival by a change in the limitation law, the defence of the statute being considered a vested right * * *" *Page 453 It may well be conjectured that Justice Bradley was advocating the doctrine of his home state of New Jersey when in his dissenting opinion in Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620 , 630 , 29 L.ed. 483 , 6 S.Ct. 209 , he said: "Now, an exemption from a demand, or | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.