preclusionary principle (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

preclusionary principle in New Jersey

9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Velasquez v. Franzgreen
nj · 1991 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2021–2025
2 sentences

2025See Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505-06 (1991); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 19 (A.L.I. 1982).

2021The dismissal on that procedural basis is not a determination "on the merits." Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505-06 (1991) (explaining that the preclusionary doctrine of res judicata requires, among other things, a final judgment in the earlier action rendered "on the merits").

22
Smith v. Red Top Taxicab Corp.green
nj · 1933 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Brown v. Brown green
njsuperctappdiv · 1986
2 sentences

1994The effect of the doctrine is to preclude a party from withholding from the action for separate and later litigation a constituent component of the controversy even where that component is a separate and independently cognizable cause of action. [ Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J.

1991That doctrine "is a preclusionary principle intended to prevent the fractionalization of litigation by requiring all claims between the same parties arising out of or relating to the same transactional circumstances to be joined in a single action." Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J.

31991–1994
Cogdell v. Hospital Center at Orange green
nj · 1989
2 sentences

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

21991–2004
Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield green
nj · 1954
2 sentences

2015Although the standard for summary judgment in our state had long been that set forth in the seminal New Jersey decision Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 , 110 A.2d 24 (1954), our Supreme Court made clear in Brill the active role trial courts should take in considering such motions.

2015Although the standard for summary judgment in our state had long been that set forth in the seminal New Jersey decision Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67 , 110 A.2d 24 (1954), our Supreme Court made clear in Brill the active role trial courts should take in considering such motions.

12015–2015
Irish Pub v. Stover neutral
njsuperctappdiv · 2003
2 sentences

2004In Irish Pub v. Stover, 364 N.J.Super. 351 , 835 A.2d 1257 (App.Div. 2003), the Appellate Division provided a recent example of the inclination of our higher courts to avoid fostering a formulaic application of the preclusionary principle, other than in the most compelling circumstances.

2004In Irish Pub v. Stover, 364 N.J.Super. 351 , 835 A.2d 1257 (App.Div. 2003), the Appellate Division provided a recent example of the inclination of our higher courts to avoid fostering a formulaic application of the preclusionary principle, other than in the most compelling circumstances.

12004–2004
Aikens v. Schmidt green
njsuperctappdiv · 2000
2 sentences

2004Aikens v. Schmidt, 329 N.J.Super. 335 , 747 A.2d 824 (App.Div.2000).

2004Aikens v. Schmidt, 329 N.J.Super. 335 , 747 A.2d 824 (App.Div.2000).

12004–2004
Mitchell v. Procini green
njsuperctappdiv · 2000
2 sentences

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

2004Cogdell, supra, 116 N.J. at 15 , 560 A.2d at 1172-73 ; Smith v. Redtop Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 440-41 , 168 A. 796, 797 (E. & A.1933); Mitchell v. Procini, 331 N.J.Super. 445 , 752 A.2d 349 (App.Div. 2000).

12004–2004
Prevratil v. Mohr green
nj · 1996
2 sentences

1998The public that we serve is entitled to take for *413 granted that when we act to bar meritorious claims we do so cautiously and reluctantly, and proceed only because the administrative goals that we advance are so essential and beneficial to the administration of justice as to warrant the [application] of a preclusionary rule. [ Id. at 214, 678 A. 2d 243 .] I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the case for trial to the Law Division.

1998The public that we serve is entitled to take for granted that when we act to bar meritorious claims we do so cautiously and reluctantly, and proceed only because the administrative goals that we advance are so essential and beneficial to the administration of justice as to warrant the [application] of a preclusionary rule. [ Id. at 214, 678 A.2d 243 .] I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the case for trial to the Law Division.

11998–1998
Cafferata v. Peyser green
njsuperctappdiv · 1991
2 sentences

1997Cafferata v. Peyser, 251 N.J.Super. 256, 264 , 597 A.2d 1101 (App.Div.1991) (“[tjhese irregularities in counsel’s papers went to the essence of defendants’ preclusionary defense and obfuscated the merits of the issue in the trial court.

1997Cafferata v. Peyser, 251 N.J.Super. 256, 264 , 597 A.2d 1101 (App.Div.1991) (“[tjhese irregularities in counsel’s papers went to the essence of defendants’ preclusionary defense and obfuscated the merits of the issue in the trial court.

11997–1997

Where else courts name it

NJ 9 (1991–2025) AL 5 (2016–2018)

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