 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Thomas, D-175 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was disbarred for committing numerous ethical violations in two separate disciplinary matters brought against him. Due to the fact that the attorney failed to appear, he was defaulted, pursuant to R. 1:20-4(f)(2), and was deemed to have admitted the numerous ethical violations charged against him.
|
|||||
| Negron v. Melchiorre, Inc., DOCKET NO. A-5105-04T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence suit wherein plaintiff obtained a money judgment in an amount in excess of 120 percent of an offer of judgment made three years prior, sanctions provided for in R. 4:58-2(a) remained enforceable, even though the final judgment was not entered until the completion of three trials.
|
|||||
| Charles Beseler Co. v. O'Gorman & Young, Inc., A-75 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As policy did not unambiguously exclude injuries in cases where employer knew consequences of its acts were "substantially certain" to result in harm to employee, under N.J.S.A. § 34:15-8's "intentional wrong" exception to workers' compensation exclusivity, employer's insurer was obliged to defend it from common law claims filed by its employee.
|
|||||
| N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Delta Plastics Corp., A-87 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Allen v. World Inspection Network Intern., Inc., DOCKET NO. A-1624-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As franchise agreement's provision requiring disputes to be arbitrated in Washington State was integral part of arbitration clause, it fell within ambit of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. §§ 1 to 16. Under Supremacy Clause principles, the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act could not preclude enforcement of this forum selection provision.
|
|||||
| State v. Sharp, INDICTMENT NO. 05-06-2236,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION, CAMDEN COUNTY, December 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an arson prosecution, without laboratory confirmation, a deputy fire marshal's opinion that an accelerant-detection dog's alerting to a particular location was probative of the presence of an accelerant, was not based upon a generally accepted scientific theory and was thus inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 703 and Frye.
|
|||||
| Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Cherry Hill Pain & Rehab. Institute, DOCKET NO. A-1064-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where health care facility's suit against insurers had been dismissed for lack of standing, insurers' later suit against facility for violating New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act was not precluded by entire controversy doctrine, as there had been no determination of merits of parties' claims and insurers' complaint involved separate claims.
|
|||||
| Mount Laurel Tp v. MiPro Homes, L.L.C., A-85/86 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 7, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Franklin Sav. Account No. 2067, DOCKET NO. A-1895-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 7, 2006; Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State filed a complaint for forfeiture of funds in defendant's savings account, its issuance of a subpoena to his bank that violated R. 4:14-7(c) was not grounds to dismiss the suit. The violation did not harm defendant or benefit the State, as it did not gain access to any records it was not entitled to receive under a prior court order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
