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 1954–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Forsythgreen1 sentence2022An exception to that general requirement of finality for appellate review is the collateral order doctrine, under which a district court order is appealable if it is “within ‘that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.’” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 524-25 (1985) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.green1 sentence2022Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)); see also Lozano v. New Jersey, 9 F.4th 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2021) (applying the collateral 21 order doctrine to review a summary judgment determination denying qualified immunity that raised only a legal issue in an action brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). | 1 | 1 |
Geronimo Lozano v. State of New Jerseygreen1 sentence2022Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)); see also Lozano v. New Jersey, 9 F.4th 239, 244 (3d Cir. 2021) (applying the collateral 21 order doctrine to review a summary judgment determination denying qualified immunity that raised only a legal issue in an action brought in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. G.L.green1 sentence2017Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.L., 191 N.J. 596, 605 (2007) ("There is an exception to that general rule of deference: Where the issue to be decided is an 'alleged error in the trial judge's evaluation of the underlying facts and the implications to be drawn therefrom,' we expand the scope of our review" (quoting In re Guardianship of J.T., 269 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Guardianship of JT
green
2 sentences2017In re J.T., supra, 269 N.J. 2017In re J.T., supra, 269 N.J. | 2 | 2007–2017 |
Bencivenga v. JJAMM, INC.
green
1 sentence2018In that case, a nightclub patron sued the club after he was punched in the face by a fellow patron, whose identity he did not know. 258 N.J. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Maese v. Snowden
green
2 sentences2015Ocean City, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 359 , 958 A.2d 465 ; Maese, supra, 148 N.J.Super. at 13 , 371 A.2d 802 . 2015Ocean City, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 359 , 958 A.2d 465 ; Maese, supra, 148 N.J.Super. at 13 , 371 A.2d 802 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Ocean City v. Somerville
green
2 sentences2015Ocean City, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 359 , 958 A.2d 465 ; Maese, supra, 148 N.J.Super. at 13 , 371 A.2d 802 . 2015Ocean City, supra, 403 N.J.Super. at 359 , 958 A.2d 465 ; Maese, supra, 148 N.J.Super. at 13 , 371 A.2d 802 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Williams v. Sanacore
green
1 sentence1967Super. 236 ( App. Div. 1951), and Williams v. Sanacore, 11 N.J. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Schlecter v. Hollander
green
1 sentence1967Plaintiff seeks to rely on an exception to that general rule exemplified by cases such as Schlecter v. Hollander, 11 N.J. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
La Rosa ex rel. La Rosa v. Nichols
green
1 sentence1954However, in LaRosa v. Nichols, 92 N.J.L. 375 (1918), the Court of Errors and Appeals held there is an exception to that general rule; in a proper case an infant may be estopped from asserting infancy as a defense. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.