10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Home Owners Construction Co. v. Borough of Glen Rockgreen1 sentence2024Co. v. Glen Rock, 34 N.J. 305, 316 (1961) ("the writing requirement may be expressly or impliedly waived by the clear conduct or agreement of the parties . . . ."). | 1 | 1 |
Mazza v. Scolerigreen1 sentence2020See Mazza v. Scoleri, 304 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Renna v. County of Uniongreen2 sentences2014See Renna, supra, 407 N.J. 2014See Renna, supra, 407 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Botis v. Estate of Kudrickgreen1 sentence2012Id, at 116-17, 22 A. 3d 975. | 1 | 1 |
United States of America Ex Rel. John Williams v. Richard Derobertisgreen1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David Cochrangreen1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Lee Sammonsgreen1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Azevedo v. Ministergreen2 sentences1979Accord, Azevedo v. Minister, 86 Nev. 576 , 471 P. 2d 661 (Sup. Ct. 1970). 1979Accord, Azevedo v. Minister, 86 Nev. 576 , 471 P. 2d 661 (Sup. Ct. 1970). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cohn v. Fisher
green
2 sentences1999The purpose behind the admission exception to the writing requirement is that "[t]he statute of frauds was not designed to protect a party who made an oral contract, but rather to aid a party who did not make a contract, though one is claimed to have been made orally with him." Cohn v. Fisher, 118 N.J.Super. 286, 296 , 287 A. 2d 222 (Law Div. 1972). 1999The purpose behind the admission exception to the writing requirement is that "[t]he statute of frauds was not designed to protect a party who made an oral contract, but rather to aid a party who did not make a contract, though one is claimed to have been made orally with him." Cohn v. Fisher, 118 N.J.Super. 286, 296 , 287 A. 2d 222 (Law Div. 1972). | 2 | 1979–1999 |
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of D.Y. Svp 491-08
green
1 sentence2021I do not agree, however, that forbidding “any suit on the contract” means that Goldfarb can sue for “reliance damages” -- just not for “benefit-of- the-bargain damages.” See ibid. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Starkey v. Estate of Nicolaysen
green
2 sentences2009Starkey v. Estate of Nicolaysen, 172 N.J. 60, 69 , 796 A. 2d 238 (2002). 2009Starkey v. Estate of Nicolaysen, 172 N.J. 60, 69 , 796 A. 2d 238 (2002). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999Ibid. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann
green
2 sentences1994Additionally, under federal authority, defendant who has waived his right to a jury trial bears the burden of "plain[ly] showing that such waiver was not freely and intelligently made." Adams, supra, 317 U.S. at 281 , 63 S.Ct. at 242 , 87 L.Ed. at 275-76 . 1994Additionally, under federal authority, defendant who has waived his right to a jury trial bears the burden of "plain[ly] showing that such waiver was not freely and intelligently made." Adams, supra, 317 U.S. at 281 , 63 S.Ct. at 242 , 87 L.Ed. at 275-76 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Dixon v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Yu v. California
green
1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Simpson v. Isringhausen
green
1 sentence1994Williams v. DeRobertis, 715 F. 2d 1174, 1182 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1072 , 104 S.Ct. 982 , 79 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1984). *551 Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), a defendant may "waive[] a jury trial in writing with the approval of the court and the consent of the government." Compliance with this rule's writing requirement "`creates a presumption that the waiver is a voluntary, knowing and intelligent one.'" United States v. Sammons, 918 F. 2d 592, 597 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Cochran, 770 F. 2d 850, 851 (9th Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bierman v. Barthelmeus
green
1 sentence1992N.J.S.A. 25:1-9; Klie v. Hollstein, 98 N.J.L. 473 , 120 A. 16 (1923); Bierman v. Barthelmeus, 24 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Klie v. Hollstein
green
2 sentences1992N.J.S.A. 25:1-9; Klie v. Hollstein, 98 N.J.L. 473 , 120 A. 16 (1923); Bierman v. Barthelmeus, 24 N.J. 1992N.J.S.A. 25:1-9; Klie v. Hollstein, 98 N.J.L. 473 , 120 A. 16 (1923); Bierman v. Barthelmeus, 24 N.J. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. v. Consolidated Pipe Co. of America, Inc.
green
1 sentence1979Quoting from Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1 to § 2-201 the court concluded that any memoranda affording "a basis for believing that the offered oral evidence rests on a real transaction" id. 153 A. 2d at 476 , would satisfy the writing requirement of subsection 2, echoing Cohn v. Fisher, supra . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.