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 1924–1990 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 |
|---|---|---|
N. Rothenberg & Son, Inc. v. Nakogreen1 sentence1986See N. Rothenberg & Son, Inc. v. Nako, 49 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Bittnergreen1 sentence1982As is the case with other states which, "feeling trapped by the strict pecuniary *478 loss limitation set forth in their Wrongful Death Act," have been openly critical of their legislatures, New Jersey has nevertheless reaffirmed that "`pecuniary injuries' suffered by the surviving next of kin is the standard for all wrongful death cases." Green v. Bittner, 85 N.J. 1, 10-11 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lastergreen1 sentence1953In this respect there was error." *197 In State v. Laster, 71 N.J.L. 586, 588 ( E. & A. 1905), our Court of Errors and Appeals has stated: "* * * Common observers, having special opportunity for observation, may testify to their opinions as conclusions of fact, although they are not experts, if the subject-matter to which the testimony relates cannot be reproduced or described to the jury precisely as it appeared to the witness at the time, and their opinions are such as men in general are capable of forming with reasonable correctness on the facts observed." Mathematically calculated, the imp | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winter v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1990For that statement the Court cited National Docks, etc., Co. v. United Companies, 53 N.J.L. 217, 226-227 , 21 A. 570 (E & A 1890); Winter v. Telephone Co., 51 N.J.L. 83 , 16 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1888); and Vail v. Morris & Essex R.R. 1990For that statement the Court cited National Docks, etc., Co. v. United Companies, 53 N.J.L. 217, 226-227 , 21 A. 570 (E & A 1890); Winter v. Telephone Co., 51 N.J.L. 83 , 16 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1888); and Vail v. Morris & Essex R.R. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
National Docks & New Jersey Junction Connecting Railway Co. v. State
green
2 sentences1990For that statement the Court cited National Docks, etc., Co. v. United Companies, 53 N.J.L. 217, 226-227 , 21 A. 570 (E & A 1890); Winter v. Telephone Co., 51 N.J.L. 83 , 16 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1888); and Vail v. Morris & Essex R.R. 1990For that statement the Court cited National Docks, etc., Co. v. United Companies, 53 N.J.L. 217, 226-227 , 21 A. 570 (E & A 1890); Winter v. Telephone Co., 51 N.J.L. 83 , 16 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1888); and Vail v. Morris & Essex R.R. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Al, Bl v. Pa, Ma
green
1 sentence1990Ibid. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Lawlor v. Kolarsick
green
1 sentence1974McCormick, Evidence, § 29 at 54-55 (1954), cited with approval in Lawlor v. Kolarsick, supra, 92 N.J. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Morris
green
1 sentence1924State v. Morris, 121 Atl. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.