9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gray v. Howellgreen2 sentences1957Gray v. Howell, 292 Mass. 400 , 198 N. E. 516, 517 (Sup. Jud. 1957Gray v. Howell, 292 Mass. 400 , 198 N. E. 516, 517 (Sup. Jud. | 2 | 2 |
Motley v. Borough of Seaside Park Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2026The doctrine of relative hardship is "an equitable doctrine." Motley v. Borough of Seaside Park Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 430 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Szymczak v. LaFerraragreen1 sentence2026A court may appropriately apply the relative hardship doctrine "where both parties are personally blameless, an injunction works a great hardship on the encroacher, and money damages suffice for the victim." Szymczak v. LaFerrara, 280 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Bd. of Adjust., Bor. of Eatontowngreen2 sentences2013Applying the doctrine of relative hardship in Hill, supra, 122 N.J.Super. at 164, 299 A.2d 737 , we noted that the homeowners m that case would be forced to destroy the improvements that they had made before the litigation was brought. 2013Applying the doctrine of relative hardship in Hill, supra, 122 N.J.Super. at 164, 299 A.2d 737 , we noted that the homeowners m that case would be forced to destroy the improvements that they had made before the litigation was brought. | 1 | 1 |
Rossi v. Sierchiogreen1 sentence1957In our view, therefore, the doctrine of relative hardship, as above expounded, is supportable as "the more equitable view." Rossi v. Sierchio, 30 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Higbee & Riggs v. Camden & Amboy Railroad & Transportation Co.green1 sentence1957Co., 20 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gilpin v. Jacob Ellis Realties, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Invoking the “doctrine of relative hardship,” the Appellate Division held that the differences in these two figures were “so grossly disproportionate in amount as to justify the denial of the mandatory injunction.” 47 N.J.Super. at 35-36 , 135 A.2d 204 . 1981It also may involve application of the doctrine of relative hardship, under which such an injunction may be denied where the benefit to plaintiff, if it were issued, would be "grossly less than the expense which would thereby be put to the defendant in carrying out the injunction." Id. at 31 . | 4 | 1964–2026 |
Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Blair Holding Co. Inc.
green
1 sentence1975This case was cited with approval in the Tide-Water Pipe case, supra 42 N.J. at 600 . *31 The foregoing New Jersey decisions recognize and apply the general principles of easement law. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.