|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
New Jersey - May 24, 2007
|
| |
|
| |
Baboghlian v. Swift Elec. Supply, DOCKET NO. A-6563-04T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a negligence suit seeking compensation for fire damage, it was held that a property owner's duties imposed by New Jersey's Uniform Fire Code, N.J.A.C. 5:70-1.1 to -4.19, including the duty to obtain a permit prior to voluntary fire safety system installation and to arrange for inspections, were nondelegable to a independent contractor/installer.
|
|
| |
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, DOCKET NO. A-6102-04T3, A-6104-04T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The Railroad Franchise Tax (RFT), N.J.S.A. §§ 54:29A-13 to -15, was held facially constitutional in a tax appeal, but the RFT assessments against two railroads were reversed as the railroads presented sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact as to whether the formula was unconstitutional as applied to them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Totaro, Duffy, Cannova & Co., L.L.C. v. Lane, Middleton & Co., L.L.C., A-14 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, May 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: While plaintiff was entitled to compensatory damages for the loss of compliance work due to an accountant's breach of a noncompete agreement, as record supported the conclusion that each client would have remained plaintiff's client for only the first year after accountant's departure, damages had to be based only on plaintiff's first-year losses.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
