 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Albanese v. Lolio, DOCKET NO. A-1861-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice suit, a lawyer owed no duty to third parties, who were beneficiaries of an estate the lawyer represented, and did not have an obligation to consider and advise all such beneficiaries of the tax consequences of a bequest though such a duty extended to the executrix as an individual based on the retainer agreement.
|
|||||
| New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. National Cas. Co., DOCKET NO. A-0852-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit between primary and excess insurers, in order to hold a carrier liable for prejudgment interest, pursuant to R. 4:42-11(b), even when such interest exceeds a policy's coverage limit, a trial court had to find that the carrier violated its fiduciary duty to engage in good faith efforts to settle the claims asserted against the insured.
|
|||||
| Port Liberte Homeowners Ass'n v. Sordoni Constr. Co., DOCKET NO. A-2138-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 4, 2007 , Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 45:22A-26, two non-profit corporations charged with controlling and maintaining a condominium's common elements, formed after alleged misrepresentations were made to the condominium's developer, had standing to assert common law and consumer fraud claims against a manufacturer of a product used by the developer.
|
|||||
| Seabridge v. Discount Auto, Inc., DOCKET NO. A-3237-05T1, A-3902-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An amendment to a personal automobile policy, without notice to the policyholder, that substituted a step down of coverage rather than the prior exclusion of coverage when the covered automobile was driven by a person in the automobile repair business was held valid and enforceable in an insurance coverage case.
|
|||||
| Simmermon v. Dryvit Sys., DOCKET NO. A-4564-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate's consumer fraud suit against manufacturer should not have been dismissed due to the settlement of Tennessee class action suit against manufacturer based on similar claims, as manufacturer's failure to comply with R. 4:5-1(b)(2) by notifying estate of class action prevented it from invoking preclusive effect of settlement in Tennessee case.
|
|||||
| State v. D.A., A-23 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant violated hindering statute, N.J.S.A. § 2C:29-3(b)(3), by intimidating witness to keep her from reporting his child molestation, but did not violate witness tampering statute, N.J.S.A. § 2C:28-5(a), as there was no evidence he knew of any facts that would have led him to believe official proceeding was pending or about to be instituted.
|
|||||
| State v. Loftin, A-78 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By not excusing a juror who appeared biased and who, by his own words, predetermined defendant's guilt and by not voir diring the remaining jurors to make certain that none had been tainted, a trial court failed to ensure that the jury's impartiality was not compromised, which required reversal of defendant's murder conviction and death sentence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
