Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Churchgreen2 sentences2024Applying the language of Section 7, our Supreme Court reiterated in Green, "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it (1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable[,] or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who was then a beneficiary of the charitable works." Id. at 530-31 (quoting Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333, 342 (2003)); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). 2024Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant is a nonprofit organization structured exclusively for religious purposes, or that plaintiff was a beneficiary of defendant's charitable services as defined under the Act. 2 Instead, plaintiff challenges the court's determination of the summary judgment motion prior to 2 An entity qualifies for charitable immunity under the Act "'"when it (1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable[,] or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who w | 3 | 3 |
Abdallah v. OCCUPATIONAL CENTER OF HUDSON CTY., INC.green1 sentence2024A-2138-22 4 "Charitable immunity is an affirmative defense, as to which, like all affirmative defenses, defendants bear the burden of persuasion." Abdallah v. Occupational Ctr. of Hudson Cnty., Inc., 351 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Loder v. St. Thomas Greek Orthodox Churchgreen2 sentences2001Thomas Greek Orthodox Church, 295 N.J.Super. 297, 301 , 685 A.2d 20 (App.Div. 1996) (“[I]n litigation concerning the Act, the focus is on whether the organization is a charitable association, and whether the injured plaintiff is a ‘beneficiary’ of its charitable works.”) Because it is undisputed that Community House is a nonprofit entity, we begin our analysis with the question whether Community House is organized exclusively for charitable purposes. 2001Thomas Greek Orthodox Church, 295 N.J.Super. 297, 301 , 685 A.2d 20 (App.Div. 1996) (“[I]n litigation concerning the Act, the focus is on whether the organization is a charitable association, and whether the injured plaintiff is a ‘beneficiary’ of its charitable works.”) Because it is undisputed that Community House is a nonprofit entity, we begin our analysis with the question whether Community House is organized exclusively for charitable purposes. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hamel v. State
green
2 sentences2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of 2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of | 3 | 2001–2006 |
Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)
green
2 sentences2024Plaintiff does not dispute that defendant is a nonprofit organization structured exclusively for religious purposes, or that plaintiff was a beneficiary of defendant's charitable services as defined under the Act. 2 Instead, plaintiff challenges the court's determination of the summary judgment motion prior to 2 An entity qualifies for charitable immunity under the Act "'"when it (1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable[,] or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who w 2022As the Court stated in Green, an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it (1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who was then a beneficiary of the charitable works. [237 N.J. at 530–31 (quoting Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333, 342 (2003)).] A-2520-20 3 The judge noted plaintiff did not dispute Kean satisfied the first two-prongs of the test. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
O'CONNELL v. State
green
2 sentences2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of 2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of | 2 | 2003–2006 |
Komninos v. BANCROFT NEUROHEALTH
green
1 sentence2024Applying the language of Section 7, our Supreme Court reiterated in Green, "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it (1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable[,] or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of the injury to plaintiff who was then a beneficiary of the charitable works." Id. at 530-31 (quoting Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, 175 N.J. 333, 342 (2003)); see also N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Young v. Schering Corp.
green
2 sentences2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of 2006Where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face and admits of only one interpretation, a court must infer the Legislature's intent from the statute's plain meaning. [ 171 N.J. 484, 488 , 795 A. 2d 857 (2002) (quoting Young v. Schering Corp., supra, 141 N.J. at 25 , 660 A. 2d 1153 (1995)) (citations omitted).] By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), "an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes at the time of | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Graber v. Richard Stockton College
green
2 sentences2002The statute protects a qualifying organization only from liability to "a beneficiary, to whatever degree, of the works of such nonprofit corporation, society or association...." Ibid. 2002The statute protects a qualifying organization only from liability to “a beneficiary, to whatever degree, of the works of such nonprofit corporation, society or association. . . .” Ibid. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Monaghan v. Holy Trinity Church
green
1 sentence1996"Case law also reflects th[is] legislative mandate." Monaghan v. Holy Trinity Church, 275 N.J. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.