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 1 courts 1990–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operationsgreen2 sentences2025Although the FELA standard is generally more relaxed than the common law negligence standard, FELA plaintiffs remain obligated to establish the "traditional common law elements of negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation." Stevens, 356 N.J. 2025Although the FELA standard is generally more relaxed than the common law negligence standard, FELA plaintiffs remain obligated to establish the "traditional common law elements of negligence: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation." Stevens, 356 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
Beeber v. Norfolk Southern Corp.green2 sentences2003Having said that, however, it is well to remember that speculation, conjecture and possibilities are still not enough. [ Beeber v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 754 F.Supp. 1364, 1368 (N.D.Ind.1990) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).] Under the FELA standard, which is more liberal than generally provided by the common law of negligence, recovery may be had where the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. 2003Having said that, however, it is well to remember that speculation, conjecture and possibilities are still not enough. [ Beeber v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 754 F.Supp. 1364, 1368 (N.D.Ind.1990) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).] Under the FELA standard, which is more liberal than generally provided by the common law of negligence, recovery may be had where the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought. | 1 | 1 |
Zeleznik v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996In Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F. 2d 356 (3d Cir.1986), the Third Circuit, applying Kubrick to a FELA claim, stated that "the statute of limitations begins to run on the first date that the injured party possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he's entitled to redress. " Id. at 359 (quoting Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F. 2d 20, 23 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis added)); see also In re Central R.R. 1996In Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F. 2d 356 (3d Cir.1986), the Third Circuit, applying Kubrick to a FELA claim, stated that "the statute of limitations begins to run on the first date that the injured party possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he's entitled to redress. " Id. at 359 (quoting Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F. 2d 20, 23 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis added)); see also In re Central R.R. | 1 | 1 |
Scarano v. Central R. Co. Of New Jerseygreen1 sentence1990Co. of New Jersey, 203 F. 2d 510, 513 (3d Cir.1953) *180 (railroad employee held judicially estopped from contending that he was physically rehabilitated and entitled to be restored to duty by fact that he had asserted in FELA claim that he would be unable to work because of his injuries). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2022The FELA standard "is more liberal than generally provided by the common law of negligence . . . ." Ibid. 2022The FELA standard "is more liberal than generally provided by the common law of negligence . . . ." Ibid. | 2 | 2022–2024 |
Richard Gallose v. Long Island Railroad Company
green
2 sentences2024The court soundly determined no evidence demonstrated defendant failed to address a safety issue "at the scene of the incident where th[e] accident occurred" and "it [wa]s not enough . . . to find an alleged flaw in the building or the neighborhood." No prima facie facts support that defendant "using reasonable care should have . . . taken other steps to inform [and/or] protect its employees." See Gallose, 878 F.2d at 85 . 2024The court soundly determined no evidence demonstrated defendant failed to address a safety issue "at the scene of the incident where th[e] accident occurred" and "it [wa]s not enough . . . to find an alleged flaw in the building or the neighborhood." No prima facie facts support that defendant "using reasonable care should have . . . taken other steps to inform [and/or] protect its employees." See Gallose, 878 F.2d at 85 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Berlen v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
green
2 sentences2003We reversed and remanded on the ground that "a reasonable fact-finder could conclude plaintiff was justified in assuming that the condition identified in January 1988 had been resolved and that he had no basis for a FELA claim." Id. at 554 , 677 A. 2d at 1156 . 2003We reversed and remanded on the ground that "a reasonable fact-finder could conclude plaintiff was justified in assuming that the condition identified in January 1988 had been resolved and that he had no basis for a FELA claim." Id. at 554 , 677 A. 2d at 1156 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Dale R. Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
green
2 sentences1996In Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F. 2d 356 (3d Cir.1986), the Third Circuit, applying Kubrick to a FELA claim, stated that "the statute of limitations begins to run on the first date that the injured party possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he's entitled to redress. " Id. at 359 (quoting Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F. 2d 20, 23 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis added)); see also In re Central R.R. 1996In Kichline v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 800 F. 2d 356 (3d Cir.1986), the Third Circuit, applying Kubrick to a FELA claim, stated that "the statute of limitations begins to run on the first date that the injured party possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he's entitled to redress. " Id. at 359 (quoting Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F. 2d 20, 23 (3d Cir.1985) (emphasis added)); see also In re Central R.R. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lawrence Albert v. Maine Central Railroad Company
green
2 sentences1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. 1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
David J. Fries v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Company
green
2 sentences1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. 1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
cluster 573075
green
2 sentences1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). 1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Aerojet-General Shipyards, Incorporated v. William M. O'keeffe
green
2 sentences1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. 1996Ibid. (distinguishing Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc. v. O'Keeffe, 413 F. 2d 793 (5th Cir.1969)). [4] *551 In Fries, supra, 909 F. 2d 1092 , the Seventh Circuit also affirmed summary judgment on limitation grounds in a FELA hearing loss case. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Continental Casualty Co. v. UNR Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). 1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Monroe v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). 1996Co., 950 F. 2d 887 , 892 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied sub nom. 503 U.S. 971 , 112 S.Ct. 1586 , 118 L.Ed. 2d 305 (1992). | 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.
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.