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.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc.green1 sentence2024The waiver provision contained in the OWBPA clearly indicates its limited applicability to claims arising only under the ADEA: "An individual may not waive any right or claim under this Act unless the waiver is knowing and voluntary" and meets the listed criteria. 29 U.S.C. § 626 (f)(1); see also A-2935-22 15 Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422, 427 (1998) (stating "[t]he OWBPA sets up its own regime for assessing the effect of ADEA waivers, separate and apart from contract law"). | 1 | 1 |
D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistrygreen1 sentence2020See also D.D., 213 N.J. at 159 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Fireworks by Girone, Inc.green1 sentence2019Stated differently, "in balancing the liability and immunity provisions of the TCA, 'immunity is the rule and liability is the exception.'" Smith v. Fireworks by Girone, Inc., 180 N.J. 199, 207 (2003) (quoting Posey ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Epstein v. Stategreen2 sentences1999N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; see Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 355 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998). 1999N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; see Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 355 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dossgreen1 sentence1999N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; see Epstein v. State, 311 N.J.Super. 350, 355 , 709 A. 2d 1353 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 155 N.J. 589 , 715 A. 2d 992 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Vedutis v. Tesigreen1 sentence1978The resolution of this motion depends on the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 which provides: No action shall be brought against a public entity under this act unless the claim upon which it is based has been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter. [Emphasis supplied] This section makes it clear that a notice of claim is "a precondition and an inherent part of maintaining `an action under the act.'" Vedutis v. Tesi, 135 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fuller v. Rutgers
green
1 sentence2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Saxton
green
1 sentence2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Timber Properties, Inc. v. Chester Tp.
green
1 sentence2003N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 provides: No action shall be brought against a public entity or public employee under this act unless the claim upon which it is based shall have been presented in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter. [2] The purposes underlying the notification requirements of the Act were set forth in the 1972 report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity, portions of which are contained in the comments to the statute. [3] The Task Force *686 Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3 states that the purpose "of the claims notification requirement... is two-fold: (a) t | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fuller v. Rutgers, State University
green
2 sentences2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc 2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Beauchamp v. Amedio
green
2 sentences2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc 2003Expanding on these purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Beauchamp v. Amedio, 164 N.J. 111, 121-22 , 751 A. 2d 1047 (2000), explained that the goals of the Act's notice provisions are: (1) `to allow the public entity at least six months for administrative review with the opportunity to settle meritorious claims prior to the bringing of suit'; (2) `to provide the public entity with prompt notification of a claim in order to adequately investigate the facts and prepare a defense[,]' Margolis & Novack, supra, 1972 Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:8-3; (3) `to afford the public entity a chanc | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Vedutis v. SO. PLAINFIELD BD. OF ED.
green
1 sentence1978Super. 337, 341 (Law Div. 1975), aff'd 142 N.J. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.