accrual date claim (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

accrual date claim in New Jersey

9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 5 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Beauchamp v. Amediogreen
nj · 2000 · cited in 5 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2006–2024
2 sentences

2024Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 118-19 (2000).

2021Thus, the Court has applied the discovery rule to determine the date of accrual of a claim under the TCA, ibid., and held that the accrual date for a claim under the TCA "is tolled from the date of the tortious act or injury when the injured party either does not know of his [or her] injury or does not know that a third party is responsible for the injury." Ibid. (citing McDade, 208 N.J. at 475 ); see also Beauchamp, 164 N.J. at 122 .

45
Speer v. Armstronggreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1979 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
1 sentence

1982Speer v. Armstrong, 168 N.J.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Edan Ben Elazar v. Macrietta Cleaners, Inc. (078079) (Union County and Statewide) green
nj · 2017
2 sentences

2021Thus, the Court has applied the discovery rule to determine the date of accrual of a claim under the TCA, ibid., and held that the accrual date for a claim under the TCA A-1099-19 9 "is tolled from the date of the tortious act or injury when the injured party either does not know of his [or her] injury or does not know that a third party is responsible for the injury," ibid. (citing McDade, 208 N.J. at 475 ).

2021Thus, the Court has applied the discovery rule to determine the date of accrual of a claim under the TCA, ibid., and held that the accrual date for a claim under the TCA "is tolled from the date of the tortious act or injury when the injured party either does not know of his [or her] injury or does not know that a third party is responsible for the injury." Ibid. (citing McDade, 208 N.J. at 475 ); see also Beauchamp, 164 N.J. at 122 .

22021–2021
McDade v. Siazon green
nj · 2011
2 sentences

2021Thus, the Court has applied the discovery rule to determine the date of accrual of a claim under the TCA, ibid., and held that the accrual date for a claim under the TCA A-1099-19 9 "is tolled from the date of the tortious act or injury when the injured party either does not know of his [or her] injury or does not know that a third party is responsible for the injury," ibid. (citing McDade, 208 N.J. at 475 ).

2021Thus, the Court has applied the discovery rule to determine the date of accrual of a claim under the TCA, ibid., and held that the accrual date for a claim under the TCA "is tolled from the date of the tortious act or injury when the injured party either does not know of his [or her] injury or does not know that a third party is responsible for the injury." Ibid. (citing McDade, 208 N.J. at 475 ); see also Beauchamp, 164 N.J. at 122 .

22021–2021
Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Company green
nj · 1978
2 sentences

2000As recognized in Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 301 , 386 A.2d 1310 (1978)(Handler, J., dissenting), the accrual date of a claim pursuant to a timeliness analysis is determined by the operative facts of the cause of action unless delayed by operation of some legal principle, such as the discovery rule.

2000As recognized in Burd v. New Jersey Telephone Co., 76 N.J. 284, 301 , 386 A.2d 1310 (1978)(Handler, J., dissenting), the accrual date of a claim pursuant to a timeliness analysis is determined by the operative facts of the cause of action unless delayed by operation of some legal principle, such as the discovery rule.

12000–2000
Rescigno v. Picinich green
njsuperctappdiv · 1977
1 sentence

1978The consequences of a wholesale importation of the subjective criteria characterizing the "discovery rule" into automobile personal injury cases which survive the limited tort exemption barrier would not only frustrate the most fundamental aims of the No Fault Law but the legitimate interests served by enforcement of our traditional period of limitations. [3] With *359 respect to the former, the comments in Rescigno v. Picinich, supra , are particularly apt: The economic benefits which justify the whole concept of tort liability exemption would be dissipated by an application of the discovery

11978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 59:8-8 (5) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 59:8-9 (5) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 59:1-1 (3) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 59:8-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 19 (1942–2025) NJ 9 (1978–2024) TX 8 (2011–2025) CA 7 (1985–2017) MI 5 (1995–2024) AL 3 (1997–2016) VT 2 (1998–2024) CO 2 (1994–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check