6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Utility Co.green1 sentence2021Power & Light Co. v. A-3939-18 42 Melcar Utility Co., 212 N.J. 576, 587-88 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rangelgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Rangel, 213 N.J. 500, 508-08 (2013) (stating that interpretation of legislative intent begins with an analysis of the statute's "ordinary meaning"). | 1 | 1 |
Roig v. Kelseygreen2 sentences1994See Roig v. Kelsey, 135 N.J. 500, 514-516 , 641 A.2d 248 (1994). 1994See Roig v. Kelsey, 135 N.J. 500, 514-516 , 641 A.2d 248 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Saddle Brook Restaurant Corp.green1 sentence1987See Russell v. Saddle Brook Restaurant Corp., 199 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Ross v. Millergreen1 sentence1961See Ross v. Miller, supra . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morton International, Inc. v. General Accident Insurance
green
1 sentence2020A-1472-18T2 18 Instead of applying the plain meaning of the exception to the exclusion, the Morton Court expressly "limit[ed its] holding concerning the limited effect of the pollution-exclusion clause to cases in which the insured or an agent specifically authorized to act for the insured intentionally discharges a known pollutant." Id. at 78 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.