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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schroeder v. Krushevskigreen1 sentence1987Schroeder v. Krushevski, 186 So.2d 640, 643 (La.App. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 706 , 190 So.2d 230 (1966); Wolf v. Crosby, 377 A.2d 22, 27 (Del.Ch.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Crosbygreen1 sentence1987Schroeder v. Krushevski, 186 So.2d 640, 643 (La.App. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 706 , 190 So.2d 230 (1966); Wolf v. Crosby, 377 A.2d 22, 27 (Del.Ch.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Omaha Public Power District, a Corporation v. The Employers' Fire Insurance Company, a Corporationgreen1 sentence1978We find persuasive the view taken by the court in Omaha Public Power Dist. v. Employers’ Fire Insurance Co., 327 F. 2d 912, 915 (8 Cir. 1964), that a contract which required the procurement of insurance by one of the parties to become effective was a binding agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannongreen2 sentences1978The court found the contingency clause to have the same effect as the following clause appearing in the contracts in the football cases: This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party hereto only when as and if it shall be approved by the Commissioner. [New York Football Giants v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, supra at 473, Detroit Football Company v. Robinson, 186 F. Supp. at 935 , Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon, supra at 721] In both the Detroit [Lion] Football Co. and the Los Angeles Rams Football Club cases it was held that the signing of the contracts by the 1978The court found the contingency clause to have the same effect as the following clause appearing in the contracts in the football cases: This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party hereto only when as and if it shall be approved by the Commissioner. [New York Football Giants v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, supra at 473, Detroit Football Company v. Robinson, 186 F. Supp. at 935 , Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon, supra at 721] In both the Detroit [Lion] Football Co. and the Los Angeles Rams Football Club cases it was held that the signing of the contracts by the | 1 | 1 |
In Re Klein's Estategreen1 sentence1974The court stated: The current view of probable intent to which this court is now committed was crystallized in Justice Jacobs' opinion in Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert, supra ( 36 N.J. 561 ), following the ground-breaking decisions in In re Klein's Estate, 36 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Blau v. Friedmangreen1 sentence1960Blau v. Friedman, supra, at p. 401. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
McLaughlin v. Presley
green
2 sentences2008Corp., 75 N.J. 398, 414 , 383 A. 2d 98 (1978), we find no ambiguity and conclude, as did the trial judge, that the provision was not a contingency clause for the sole benefit of Spring Creek. *901 V During the pendency of this appeal, the federal jury found that Keith breached his fiduciary duty to Metairie and Spring Creek and intentionally interfered with Spring Creek's contractual relations. 2008Corp., 75 N.J. 398, 414 , 383 A. 2d 98 (1978), we find no ambiguity and conclude, as did the trial judge, that the provision was not a contingency clause for the sole benefit of Spring Creek. *901 V During the pendency of this appeal, the federal jury found that Keith breached his fiduciary duty to Metairie and Spring Creek and intentionally interfered with Spring Creek's contractual relations. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Schroeder v. Krushevski
neutral
2 sentences1987Schroeder v. Krushevski, 186 So.2d 640, 643 (La.App. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 706 , 190 So.2d 230 (1966); Wolf v. Crosby, 377 A.2d 22, 27 (Del.Ch.1977). 1987Schroeder v. Krushevski, 186 So.2d 640, 643 (La.App. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 706 , 190 So.2d 230 (1966); Wolf v. Crosby, 377 A.2d 22, 27 (Del.Ch.1977). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc., and Charles Flowers
green
1 sentence1978In support of that proposition, he cited New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc., 291 F. 2d 471 (5 Cir. 1961), Detroit [Lion] Football Co. v. Robinson, 186 F. Supp. 933 (D. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Detroit Football Company v. Robinson
green
2 sentences1978The court found the contingency clause to have the same effect as the following clause appearing in the contracts in the football cases: This agreement shall become valid and binding upon each party hereto only when as and if it shall be approved by the Commissioner. [New York Football Giants v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, supra at 473, Detroit Football Company v. Robinson, 186 F. Supp. at 935 , Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon, supra at 721] In both the Detroit [Lion] Football Co. and the Los Angeles Rams Football Club cases it was held that the signing of the contracts by the 1978In support of that proposition, he cited New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Los Angeles Chargers Football Club, Inc., 291 F. 2d 471 (5 Cir. 1961), Detroit [Lion] Football Co. v. Robinson, 186 F. Supp. 933 (D. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In Re the Estate of Burke
green
1 sentence1974The court construed the will to provide a gift-over to those who were named to take in the contingency clause. *469 A definitive statement of the rule was given in In re Burke, 48 N.J. 50 (1966). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert
green
2 sentences1974The court stated: The current view of probable intent to which this court is now committed was crystallized in Justice Jacobs' opinion in Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert, supra ( 36 N.J. 561 ), following the ground-breaking decisions in In re Klein's Estate, 36 N.J. 1974The court stated: The current view of probable intent to which this court is now committed was crystallized in Justice Jacobs' opinion in Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Robert, supra ( 36 N.J. 561 ), following the ground-breaking decisions in In re Klein's Estate, 36 N.J. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Balcom v. Balcom
green
1 sentence1957To like effect, see Balcom v. Balcom, 333 Mass. 599 , 132 N.E. 2 d 305 ( Sup. Jud. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Marschalk v. Weber
green
1 sentence1955Marschalk v. Weber, supra ; Alexander Summer Co. v. Weil, supra . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Alexander Summer Co. v. Weil
green
1 sentence1955Marschalk v. Weber, supra ; Alexander Summer Co. v. Weil, supra . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.