Image by Andrey_Popov / Shutterstock Index to Verbal Threshold Opinions
Since 1988, there have been over 120 published cases that deal with some aspect of the verbal threshold. These cases are listed here in chronological order by subject matter.
February 14, 2021 at 03:49 PM
9 minute read
Applicability:
|- Favell v. Hernandez, 261 N.J. Super. 348 (App. Div. 1995)
- Jordan v. Dennison, 278 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div. 1995)
- Beaugard v. Johnson, 281 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 1995)
- Harbold v. Olin, 287 N.J. Super. 35 (App. Div. 1996)
- Koff v. Carruba, 290 N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 1996)
- Ibarra v. Vetrano, 302 N.J. Super. 578 (App. Div. 1997)
- Carmichael v. Bryan, 310 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 1998)
- Vamvakidis v. Peters, 327 N.J. Super. 287 (App. Div. 2000)
- White v. Schley, 333 N.J. Super. 581 (Law. Div. 2000)
- Montemayor v. Signorelli, 339 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 2001)
- Lymon v. Cape Transit Corp., 340 N.J. Super. 573 (App. Div. 2001)
- Roman v. Correa, 352 N.J. Super. 124 (App. Div. 2002)
- Labas v. Molina, 369 N.J. Super. 331 (App. Div. 2004)
- Martin v. Chhabra, 374 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2005)
- Stricklen v. Ferruggia, 379 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 2005)
- Echeverri v. Blakely, 384 N.J. Super. 10 (App. Div. 2006)
- Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (2009)
Buyer's Guide:
|- Phillips v. Metlife, 378 N.J. Super. 101 (App. Div. 2005)
Certification of Permanency:
|- Pensabene v. Straus, 342 N.J. Super 196 (Law. Div. 2001)
- Watts v. Camaligan, 344 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 2001)
- Rios v. Szivos, 354 N.J. Super. 578 (App. Div. 2002)
- Konopka v. Foster, 356 N.J. Super. 223 (App. Div. 2002)
- Tierra v. Salazar, 356 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 2003)
- Casinelli v. Manglapus, 357 N.J. Super. 398 (App. Div. 2003)
- Thomasson v. McQuown, 358 N.J. Super. 64 (Law Div. 2002)
- Hernandez v. Stella, 359 N.J. Super. 415 (App. Div. 2003)
- Casinelli v. Manglapus, 181 N.J. 354 (2004)
- Olarte v. Crocker, 380 N.J. Super. 203 (Law Div. 2002)
- Afram v. Heller, 380 N.J. Super. 545 (App. Div. 2005)
Choice of Laws:
|- Cuttita v. Selective, 255 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 1992)
- Weiss v. Thomas, 274 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1994)
- Chalef v. Ryerson, 277 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 1994)
Constitutionality:
|- Rybeck v. Rybeck, 141 N.J. Super. 481 (Law Div. 1976)
- Guy v. Petty, 275 N.J. Super. 536 (Law Div. 1994)
Deemer Statute:
|- Watkins v. Davis, 268 N.J. Super. 211 (App. Div. 1993)
- Phillips v. Phillips, 267 N.J. Super. 305 (App. Div. 1993)
- Weiss v. Thomas, 274 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1994)
- Taylor-Segan v. Rajagopal, 275 N.J. Super. 286 (App. Div. 1994)
- Taylor v. Rorke, 279 N.J. Super. 63 (App. Div. 1995)
- Loftus-Smith v. Henry, 286 N.J. Super. 477 (App. Div. 1996)
- Whitaker v. DeVilla, 147 N.J. 341 (1997)
- Comitale v. Masters, 302 N.J. Super. 291 (App. Div. 1997)
- Baduini v. Serina, 375 N.J. Super. 478 (App. Div. 2005)
- Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (2009)
- Cupido v. Perez, 415 N.J. Super. 587 (App. Div. 2010)
Economic Loss:
|- Roig v. Kelsey, 135 N.J. 500 (1994)
- Bennett v. Hand, 284 N.J. Super. 43 (App. Div. 1995)
- Loftus-Smith v. Henry, 286 N.J. Super. 477 (App. Div. 1996)
- D'Aloia v. Georges, 372 N.J. Super. 246 (App. Div. 2004)
- Martin v. Chhabra, 374 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2005)
- Miskelly v. Lorence, 380 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 2005)
- Solorzano v. Sapunarich, 386 N.J. Super. 323 (App. Div. 2006)
- Haywood v. Harris, 414 N.J. Super. 204 (App. Div. 2010)
Entire Controversy:
|- Prevratil v. Mohr, 145 N.J. 180 (1996)
Fraud and Misrepresentation:
|- Mannion v. Bell, 380 N.J. Super. 259 (App. Div. 2005)
- NJM v. Varjabedian, 391 N.J. Super. 253 (App. Div. 2007)
Intentional Acts:
|- Newman v. Capello, 277 N.J. Super. 373 (Law Div. 1994)
Loss Limitations:
|- Camp v. Lummino, 352 N.J. Super. 414 (App. Div. 2002)
- Caviglia v. Royal Tours, 355 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2002)
- Rojas v. DePaolo, 357 N.J. Super. 115 (Law Div. 2002)
- Dziuba v. Fletcher, 382 N.J. Super. 73 (App. Div. 2005)
- Solorzano v. Sapunarich, 386 N.J. Super. 323 (App. Div. 2006)
- Dziuba v. Fletcher, 188 N.J. 339 (2006)
- Voss v. Tranquilino, 413 N.J. Super. 82 (App. Div. 2010)
- Voss v. Tranquilino, 206 N.J. 93 (2011)
- Aronberg v. Tolbert, 413 N.J. Super. 562 (App. Div. 2010)
- Aronberg v. Tolbert, 207 N.J. 587 (2011)
- Perrelli v. Pastorelli, 206 N.J. 193 (2011)
Pre-Existing Conditions (Comparative Analysis):
|- Polk v. Daconceicao, 268 N.J. Super. 568 (App. Div. 1993)
- Foti v. Johnson, 269 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 1993)
- Loftus-Smith v. Henry, 286 N.J. Super. 477 (App. Div. 1996)
- Sherry v. Buonansonti, 287 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. 1996)
- Ostasz v. Howard, 357 N.J. Super. 65 (App. Div. 2003)
- Bennett v. Lugo, 368 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 2004)
- Lucky v. Holland, 380 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2005)
- Davidson v. Slater, 381 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 2005)
- Hardison v. King, 381 N.J. Super. 129 (App. Div. 2005)
- Davidson v. Slater, 189 N.J. 166 (2007)
- Johnson v. Scacetti, 192 N.J. 256 (2007)
Proof of Threshold:
|- Hernandez v. Velez, 267 N.J. Super. 353 (Law Div. 1993)
Psychiatric Injury:
|- Granowitz v. Vanvickle, 264 N.J. Super. 440 (Law Div. 1993)
- Jablonowska v. Suther, 390 N.J. Super. 395 (App. Div. 2007)
- Hoag v. Brown, 397 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 2007)
- Jablonowska v. Suther, 195 N.J. 91 (2008)
Retroactivity:
|- Beltran v. DeLima, 379 N.J. Super. 169 (App. Div. 2005)
- Camacho v. Camacho, 381 N.J. Super. 395 (Law. Div. 2005)
- Hitchman v. Nagy, 382 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2006)
- Ross v. Rupert, 384 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2006)
Summary Judgment:
|- Raspantini v. Arocho, 364 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 2003)
- Kennelly-Murray v. Megill, 381 N.J. Super. 303 (App. Div. 2005)
Tort Claims Act:
|- Hoag v. Brown, 397 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 2007)
- Bolz v. Bolz, 400 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div. 2008)
- Toto v. Ensicar, 196 N.J. 134 (2008)
- Thigpen v. City of East Orange, 408 N.J. Super. 331 (App. Div. 2009)
Trial Practice:
|- Pickett v. Bevacqua, 273 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1994)
- McClelland v. Tucker, 273 N.J. Super. 410 (App. Div. 1994)
- Demers v. Snyder, 282 N.J. Super. 50 (App. Div. 1995)
Type 3 (Scarring or Disfigurement):
|- Falcone v. Branken, 135 N.J. Super. 137 (Law Div. 1975)
- Puso v. Kenyan, 272 N.J. Super. 90 (App. Div. 1994)
- Thomasson v. McQuown, 358 N.J. Super. 64 (Law Div. 2002)
- Kennelly-Murray v. Megill, 381 N.J. Super. 303 (App. Div. 2005)
- Soto v. Scaringelli, 384 N.J. Super. 431 (App. Div. 2006)
Type 4 (Fractures):
|- Rugermer v. Thompson, 130 N.J. Super. 181 (Law Div. 1974)
- Levine v. Miller, 272 N.J. Super. 512 (Law Div. 1993)
- Fowler v. Crystal Motors, Inc., 340 N.J. Super. 33 (App. Div. 2001)
- Villanueva v. Lesack, 366 N.J. Super. 564 (App. Div. 2004)
- Kennelly-Murray v. Megill, 381 N.J. Super. 303 (App. Div. 2005)
- Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256 (2007)
Type 5 (Loss of Fetus):
|- Davis v. Brooks, 280 N.J. Super. 406 (App. Div. 1993)
Type 6, 7, 8 (Soft Tissue): Pre-AICRA
|- Siriotis v. Gramuglia, 254 N.J. Super. 223 (Law Div. 1991)
- Brown v. Puente, 257 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 1992)
- Oswin v. Shaw, 129 N.J. 290 (1992)
- Dabal v. Sodora, 260 N.J. Super. 397 (App. Div. 1992)
- Favell v. Hernandez, 261 N.J. Super. 348 (Law Div. 1992)
- Phillips v. Phillips, 267 N.J. Super. 305 (App. Div. 1993)
- Watkins v. Davis, 268 N.J. Super. 211 (App. Div. 1993)
- Cineas v. Mamone, 270 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 1994)
- Arencibia v. Rosas, 270 N.J. Super. 339 (App. Div. 1994)
- Owens v. Kessler, 272 N.J. Super. 225 (App. Div. 1994)
- Moreno v. Greenfield, 272 N.J. Super. 456 (App. Div. 1994)
- Cavanaugh v. Morris, 273 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1994)
- McClelland v. Tucker, 273 N.J. Super. 410 (App. Div. 1994
- Weiss v. Thomas, 274 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1994)
- Guy v. Petty, 275 N.J. Super. 536 (Law Div. 1994)
- Chalef v. Ryerson, 277 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 1994)
- Shorter v. Leach, 277 N.J. Super. 617 (Law Div. 1994)
- Sherry v. Buonansonti, 287 N.J. Super. 518 (App. Div. 1996)
- Cureton v. Eley, 294 N.J. Super. 321 (Law Div. 1996)
- Whitaker v. DeVilla, 147 N.J. 341 (1997)
- Carmichael v. Bryan, 310 N.J. Super. 34 (App. Div. 1998)
- Natale v. Kisling, 336 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 2001)
- Montemayor v. Signorelli, 339 N.J. Super. 482 (App. Div. 2001)
Type 6 (Permanent Injury): Post-AICRA
|- Jacques v. Kinsey, 347 N.J. Super. 112 (Law Div. 2001)
- Rogozinski v. Turs, 351 N.J. Super. 536 (Law Div. 2002)
- Compere v. Collins, 352 N.J. Super. 200 (Law Div. 2002)
- James v. Torres, 354 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 2002)
- Tierra v. Salazar, 356 N.J. Super. 586 (App. Div. 2003)
- Thompson v. Potenza, 837 A.2d 378 (App. Div. 2003)
- Serrano v. Serrano, 357 N.J. Super. 450 (App. Div. 2004)
- Martin v. Chhabra, 374 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 2005)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (2005)
- Serrano v. Serrano, 183 N.J. 508 (2005)
- Juarez v. Salerno, 379 N.J. Super. 91 (App. Div. 2005)
- Pungitore v. Brown, 379 N.J. Super. 165 (App. Div. 2005)
- Juarez v. Salerno, 185 N.J. 332 (2005)
- Kratzer v. NJM, 185 N.J. 385 (2005)
- Hitchman v. Nagy, 382 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2006)
- Pardo v. Dominguez, 382 N.J. Super. 489 (App. Div. 2006)
- Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256 (2007)
- Edwards v. Walsh, 397 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div. 2007)
- Ames v. Gopal, 404 N.J. Super. 82 (App. Div. 2008)
- Sackman v. NJM, 445 N.J. Super. 278 (App. Div. 2016)
Type 9 (90-Day Impairment):
|- Amaechi v. Clark, 268 N.J. Super. 186 (Law Div. 1993)
- Costa v. Perez, 272 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div. 1994)
- Shorter v. Leach, 277 N.J. Super. 617 (Law Div. 1994)
- Duffy v. O'Connell, 279 N.J. Super. 672 (App. Div. 1995)
- Jefferson v. Freeman, 296 N.J. Super. 54 (App. Div. 1996)
- Vellucci v. DiMella, 338 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 2001)
UM/UIM Arbitration:
|- Dicks v. NJAFUA, 254 N.J. Super. 748 (App. Div. 1992)
- Cuttitta v. Selective, 255 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 1992)
- Stamps v. NJAFIUA, 279 N.J. Super. 485 (App. Div. 1995)
UCJF:
|- Rivera v. Fortunato, 285 N.J. Super. 168 (Law Div. 1995)
- Sumner v. UCJF, 288 N.J. Super. 384 (App. Div. 1996)
- Cureton v. Eley, 294 N.J. Super. 321 (Law Div. 1996)
- Jimenez v. Baglieri, 152 N.J. 337 (1998)
Workers' Compensation:
|- Continental v. McClelland, 288 N.J. Super. 185 (App. Div. 1996)
- Lambert v. Travelers, 447 N.J. Super. 61 (App. Div. 2016)
- Talmadge v. Burn, 445 N.J. Super. 413 (App. Div. 2016)
- New Jersey Transit v. Sanchez, 242 N.J. 78 (2020)
— Compiled by Gerald H. Baker (February 2021)
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Social Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute read
Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read
'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 2Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 3Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
- 4Delaware Governor Names Magistrate Judge as Next Vice Chancellor
- 5Hagens Berman Accused of Withholding Share of $13M Award in Pharmaceutical Settlement
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
