 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Addesa v. Addesa, DOCKET NO. A-5515-04T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a divorce proceeding, the mediator in a private mediation should not have been deposed nor subjected to discovery in connection with an attack on a privately mediated property settlement agreement (PSA) though the subsequent setting aside of the PSA as unconscionable after a plenary hearing was not in error.
|
|||||
| In re Adoption of Amendments & New Regulations at N.J.A.C. 7:27-27.1, DOCKET NO. A-2445-04T2, A-2476-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court upheld the first-ever regulations of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) controlling mercury emissions from iron and steel, as promulgated in 36 N.J.R. 5406(a). The DEP did not exceed its statutory authority, did not act arbitrarily, nor violated any rulemaking requirements in enacting the regulations.
|
|||||
| Leitner v. Toms River Reg'l Schs, DOCKET NO. A-3460-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in a discrimination suit by not granting plaintiffs' motion to extend discovery as, pursuant to R. 4:24-1(c), plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient good cause for an extension since no arbitration or trial date had been set and no prejudice was demonstrated by the non-moving party.
|
|||||
| Pfizer, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, DOCKET NO. 000055-2006,
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY, April 13, 2007, Letter opinion; June 1, 2007, Formal opinion
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though two taxpayers both challenged facial constitutionality of N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-6(B) in separate appeals, tax court refused to allow the second taxpayer to appear as amicus curiae under R. 1:13-9 in first taxpayer's appeal, as first taxpayer was competent to litigate the issue, and there would be risk of inconsistent results in the two appeals.
|
|||||
| Union County Improvement Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, DOCKET NO. A-6237-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order denying the landowners' motion to consolidate two separate condemnation actions was reversed on appeal as the five contiguous parcels of realty were owned in various degrees by a family controlled limited liability company, or a combination of individual family members, and issues such as unity of ownership needed to be decided.
|
|||||
| Prospect Rehab. Servs., Inc. v. Squitieri, DOCKET NO. A-2991-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's legal malpractice action against defendant, its former attorney, was reversed since factual issues existed as to whether plaintiff took reasonable steps to avoid the consequences of defendant's alleged negligence by attempting to amend its complaint to add the claims omitted by defendant and appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
