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 2 courts 1908–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kortenhaus v. Eli Lilly & Co.green2 sentences2024When used to bar a defendant from asserting a defense previously litigated and lost against a different plaintiff[,] it is referred to as offensive collateral estoppel." Kortenhaus v. Eli Lilly & Co., 228 N.J. 2020When used to bar a defendant from asserting a defense previously litigated and lost against a different plaintiff[,] it is referred to as offensive collateral estoppel." Kortenhaus v. Eli Lilly & Co., 228 N.J. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Munafogreen1 sentence2020State v. Munafo, 222 N.J. 480, 487 (2015); State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 155 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kempgreen1 sentence2020State v. Munafo, 222 N.J. 480, 487 (2015); State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 155 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Century Home Components, Inc.green1 sentence2010There seems to be something fundamentally offensive about depriving a party of the opportunity to litigate the issue again when he has shown beyond a doubt that on another day he prevailed. [ Id. at 1191. (footnotes omitted).] It is true that the issue presented in Century Home Components involved the use of a prior judgment for "offensive" purposes, i.e., where the earlier judgment is "used to bar a defendant from asserting a defense previously litigated and lost against a different plaintiff. . . ." Kortenhaus v. Eli Lilly & Co., 228 N.J.Super. 162, 164 , 549 A. 2d 437 (App.Div.1988) (citati | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
green
1 sentence1988Ibid. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hart v. Sansom
green
1 sentence1908As stated by Mr. Justice Gray, in Hart v. Sansom, 110 U. S. 151 : “Upon a bill for the removal of a cloud upon the title as upon a bill for the specific performance of an agreement to' convey the decree, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, is clearly not a judgment in rem establishing a title in land, but operates in personam only by restraining the defendant from asserting his claim and directing him to deliver up his deed to be canceled, or to execute a release to the plaintiff.” When, however, the state, through its legislature, imparts an equality to tire decree in equity in th | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Arndt v. Griggs
green
1 sentence1908Arndt v. Griggs, 134 U. S. 316 . | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.