loss claim (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

loss claim in New Jersey

7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2008 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Fredericks v. Farmers Rel. Ins. Co. of NJgreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1963 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008For example, it may eventuate that plaintiffs original attorney, when attempting to negotiate the loss claim with defendant’s representatives, knew or should have known of the terms of the policy, and that such knowledge may be imputable to plaintiff. [Id. at 605,194 A.2d 497 .] In Nieder , the Supreme Court adopted the approach we had taken in Fredericks to determining whether an insured should be relieved of the policy’s twelve-month limitation upon filing suit based on-the insurer’s failure to notify her of that provision.

11
In Re Grand Jury Investigation (Subpoena to Nino v. Tinari). Appeal of United States Attorneygreen
ca3 · 1980 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989See also In re Grand Jury Investigation (Tinari), 631 F. 2d 17, 19 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F. 2d 1036, 1047 (4th Cir.1975).

11
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,487, 15 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 428 in Re Grand Jury Proceedingsgreen
ca4 · 1984 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989"Nor is the loss of the privilege confined to `the particular words used to express the communication's content' but extends `to the substance of a communication,' *222 since the disclosure of `any significant part' of a communication waives the privilege and requires the attorney to disclose `the details underlying the data which was to be published.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings, supra, 727 F. 2d at 1356, quoting United States v. Cote, supra, 456 F. 2d at 145 .

11
United States v. Wilfredo Alvarez Appeal of John A/K/A Jorge Martinezgreen
ca3 · 1975 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989See also In re Grand Jury Investigation (Tinari), 631 F. 2d 17, 19 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Alvarez, 519 F. 2d 1036, 1047 (4th Cir.1975).

11
In Re Pennicagreen
nj · 1962 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Although the specific rule has not been articulated previously in this State, we declare it to be that discipline or disbarment is warranted only where the evidence of unethical conduct or unfitness to continue in practice against an attorney is clear and convincing, [In re Pennica, 36 N.J. 401, 419 (1962)] Polk argues that there are no meaningful differences between attorneys and physicians with respect to the “dire consequences which may flow from an adverse finding” resulting in the loss of the privilege to pursue one’s profession.

1982Although the specific rule has not been articulated previously in this State, we declare it to be that discipline or disbarment is warranted only where the evidence of unethical conduct or unfitness to continue in practice against an attorney is clear and convincing. [ In re Pennica, 36 N.J. 401, 419 (1962)] Polk argues that there are no meaningful differences between attorneys and physicians with respect to the "dire consequences which may flow from an adverse finding" resulting in the loss of the privilege to pursue one's profession.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Nieder v. Royal Indemnity Insurance green
nj · 2004
2 sentences

2008In Nieder , the insurer allegedly delivered the policy only to the first mortgagee and not to the insured herself. 62 N.J. at 232 , 300 A.2d 142 .

2008In Nieder , the insurer allegedly delivered the policy only to the first mortgagee and not to the insured herself. 62 N.J. at 232 , 300 A.2d 142 .

12008–2008
Reste Realty Corporation v. Cooper green
nj · 1969
2 sentences

2006In Reste Realty , the Court reaffirmed the common law rule that a tenant's continued occupation of the leasehold for an unreasonable period of time after the basis for the constructive eviction arose would warrant a loss of the claim. 53 N.J. at 461 , 251 A. 2d 268 .

2006In Reste Realty , the Court reaffirmed the common law rule that a tenant's continued occupation of the leasehold for an unreasonable period of time after the basis for the constructive eviction arose would warrant a loss of the claim. 53 N.J. at 461 , 251 A. 2d 268 .

12006–2006
Burke v. Deiner green
nj · 1984
1 sentence

1989The Burke Court reconciled the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard with the standard set out in N.J.S.A. 59:3-14a by noting: As long as the statement is made within the exercise of the public officer's powers, it is privileged unless made with knowledge of or serious doubts about the falsity of the statement. [ Burke, supra, 97 N.J. at 478 ]. *114 In the present case, the trial court concluded that there was a factual issue "as to whether [defendant] had malice when she made the statements to the press." Under the Burke standard, however, it is clear that plaintiff could ov

11989–1989
United States of America and Howard W. George, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Donald E. Cote green
ca8 · 1972
1 sentence

1989"Nor is the loss of the privilege confined to `the particular words used to express the communication's content' but extends `to the substance of a communication,' *222 since the disclosure of `any significant part' of a communication waives the privilege and requires the attorney to disclose `the details underlying the data which was to be published.'" In re Grand Jury Proceedings, supra, 727 F. 2d at 1356, quoting United States v. Cote, supra, 456 F. 2d at 145 .

11989–1989
Mnich v. American Radiator Company neutral
ny · 1942
1 sentence

1957Mnich v. American Radiator Co., 263 App. Div. 573 , 34 N.Y.S. 2 d 16 ( App. Div. 1942), affirmed 289 N.Y. 681, 682 , 45 N.E. 2 d 333 ( Ct. App. 1942), is of some interest here, though we do not pass on the point there decided.

11957–1957
Mnich v. American Radiator Co. neutral
nyappdiv · 1942
1 sentence

1957Mnich v. American Radiator Co., 263 App. Div. 573 , 34 N.Y.S. 2 d 16 ( App. Div. 1942), affirmed 289 N.Y. 681, 682 , 45 N.E. 2 d 333 ( Ct. App. 1942), is of some interest here, though we do not pass on the point there decided.

11957–1957
Combs v. Shrewsbury Mutual Fire Insurance neutral
njch · 1880
1 sentence

1951In Combs v. Shrewsbury Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 32 N.J.

11951–1951

Where else courts name it

TX 75 (1878–2025) PA 62 (1901–2022) CA 50 (1864–2025) OK 50 (1922–2020) NY 28 (1852–2024) IL 28 (1890–2026) WV 22 (1892–2024) TN 16 (1950–2024) LA 14 (1919–2015) MA 12 (1975–2026) AZ 12 (1951–2021) NM 12 (1970–2022) IN 11 (1882–2024) GA 11 (1925–2020) FL 10 (1929–2024) MI 9 (1973–2025) OH 8 (1991–2025) MD 7 (1985–2023) NJ 7 (1951–2008) UT 6 (1989–2024) WI 6 (1948–2022) IA 6 (1896–2017) KS 6 (1970–2011) WA 6 (1953–2025) MO 6 (1892–2024) CT 5 (1870–2017) AL 5 (1875–1995) NC 5 (1986–2017) NH 4 (1978–1995) OR 4 (1987–2017) HI 3 (1916–2003) DC 3 (1986–2021) MS 3 (1991–2005) NE 3 (1895–1945) MN 3 (1908–1997) MT 3 (1923–1989) RI 3 (1970–2001) DE 2 (1972–2021) SC 2 (1950–1969) ME 2 (1984–2009) WY 2 (1985–2020) CO 2 (1982–2004)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check