 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Services v. A.C., Docket No.: FN-07-301-06K,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART, ESSEX COUNTY, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a mother's assertion of ignorance about her baby's fractured skull was not credible, and her inconsistent statements also undermined her credibility, the court found that she did not rebut the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services's prima facie case that the child was "neglected" under N.J.S.A. § 9:6-8.21(c)(4).
|
|||||
| Selective Ins. Co. v. National Continental Ins. Co., DOCKET NO. A-5019-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where plaintiff insurer filed an arbitration claim for PIP benefits against defendant insurer under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:6A-9.1, defendant's failure to defend itself by taking the proper steps to confine its liability to the limits of its policy rendered it liable to plaintiff for the balance of arbitration award that was beyond its policy limits.
|
|||||
| Shulas v. Estabrook, DOCKET NO. A-2157-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial judge abused his discretion by granting a voluntary dismissal of an action under N.J. Ct. R. 4:37-1 and in permitting plaintiff to pursue an identical, newly-filed action when plaintiff's purpose was to eviscerate the discovery end date, moot defendants' motion for summary judgment, and extinguish an imminent trial date.
|
|||||
| State v. R.E.B., DOCKET NO. A-4427-02T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution for aggravated sexual assault, court erred by not allowing defendant to challenge alleged victim's credibility by introducing evidence that she had made prior false criminal accusations, because State v. Guenther's exception to N.J. R. Evid. 608, which allowed such impeachment, applied retroactively to cases in "the pipeline."
|
|||||
| Feit v. Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Jersey, DOCKET NO. A-1343-04T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in dismissing physician's contract-based claims, seeking payment for services allegedly rendered before termination of provider agreement, as being preempted by ERISA, as he was not participant or beneficiary of ERISA plan and had no standing under ERISA to sue in his own right. His contract-based claims could be tried in state court.
|
|||||
| In re Zisa, DOCKET NO. A-3219-04T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mayor's vote to award a paving contract for a city parking lot did not provide him with an "unwarranted" privilege in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:9-22.5(c), as he leased the spaces in the city lot on the same terms available to any member of the public, and he had no connection with the paving contractor.
|
|||||
| Laufer v. U. S. Life Ins. Co. in City of New York, DOCKET NO. A-0774-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As insurer's sending allegedly deceptive notices to all policyholders was "conduct generally applicable to the class," suit claiming notices violated New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 to -20, could be maintained as class action seeking final injunctive relief with respect to class as a whole under N.J. Ct. R. 4:32-1(b)(2).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
