 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Campbell v. Campbell, DOCKET NO. A-3989-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ex-husband's motion to vacate the registration of a foreign child support judgment under UIFSA was properly denied because all issues raised his complaint and appeal could have been, or were raised at the registration hearing, and therefore, were procedurally barred from further contest under N.J.S.A. § 2A:4-30.111.
|
|||||
| In re Williams, D-71 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, March 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Uherek v. Sathe, DOCKET NO. A-6293-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former husband was not entitled to transcript of trial court's in camera interview of the parties' child under R. 5:8-6, because he made his request nearly four years after custody issue was resolved, and under R. 5:8-6, right to a transcript of a child's interview presupposed and was wholly dependent upon there being a pending custody dispute.
|
|||||
| 21-23 Seidler Associates, L.L.C. v. City of Jersey City, DOCKET NO. A-0460-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the appeal of a order of summary judgment in a quiet title action wherein a city's tax lien for demolition was upheld on one property but invalidated on another, since the city failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements of N.J.S.A. §§ 40:48-2.5 and -2.7 and N.J.S.A. § 54:5-12 at every stage, both liens were invalid.
|
|||||
| Gregory v. Borough of Avalon, DOCKET NO. A-0748-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a challenger's appeal of the approval of a site plan and variance by a borough was reversed since the interest of justice warranted an enlargement of time, pursuant to R. 4:69-6(a), to challenge the borough's resolutions authorizing the expansion of a motel and restaurant that encroached on public property.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Republic Western Ins. Co., DOCKET NO. A-3968-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Bus PIP statute, N.J.S.A. § 17:28-1.6, which mandated passenger medical expense benefits coverage, contained no limitations period. Court erred by applying legislative oversight principle and applying two-year statute of limitations of auto PIP statute to bus passenger's claim; § 17:28-1.6 was remedial statute, to be construed in favor of coverage.
|
|||||
| State v. Fleischman, A-4 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, March 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As each lie defendant told in support of one fraudulent insurance claim in one document was not separate act of fraud for purposes of N.J.S.A. § 2C:21-4.6, but only a component of one fraudulent claim, she committed three acts of fraud; therefore, indictment for second degree insurance fraud premised on five acts of fraud was properly dismissed.
|
|||||
| Weeden v. City Council of the City of Trenton, DOCKET NO. A-2200-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit challenging the grant of a variance allowing a drive-thru restaurant in a redevelopment area which plan prohibited drive-thrus, since the municipality adopted the redevelopment plan as overlay zoning, the zoning board of adjustment had jurisdiction to grant a variance from the plan, pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 40A:12A-7(c).
|
|||||
| Wilson v. General Motors Corp., A-58 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, March 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
