New Jersey Laches Law
KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO. v. THE UNITED STATES <table> <td>
Plaintiff is an electrical utility company headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. Compl. ¶ 1. It provides electrical services to both residential and commercial customers in Missouri and Kansas. Id. On or about August 19, 2005, the United States, acting through the General Services Administration (“GSA”), entered into a contract with plaintiff for the delivery of electrical utility servi... More...
$0 (03-28-2017 - NJ)Amy Ryan v. Gina Marie, L.L.C.
Plaintiff is a tenant in a multi-unit building in Hoboken that is owned by defendant Gina Marie, L.L.C. ("Gina Marie"). Plaintiff secured her apartment with the assistance of a Hoboken real estate broker and has resided there since October 1993. Her initial rent when she took up occupancy was $650 per month. There is no indication in the record that plaintiff received any increase in her rent unti... More...
$0 (06-07-2011 - NJ)Ashi-Gto Associates v. Irvington Pediatrics, P.A.
<br> These two appeals were calendared back-to-back because they arise out of the same factual complex, and the issues presented are inter-related. We consolidate them for purposes of this opinion. In A-5054-08, defendants appeal from an amended judgment entered on May 4, 2009, following a jury's verdict in plaintiff's favor. In A-5265-08, plaintiff appeals from the trial court's post-trial denial... More...
$0 (07-15-2010 - NJ)<a href="http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-18-03.opn.html" target="_new">Mancini v. Township of Teaneck</a>
<P> In Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Center, this Court considered the timeliness of certain employment-discrimination claims within the context of the continuing violation doctrine, an equitable exception to the statute of limitations. 174 N.J. 1 (2002). Within that same framework, we also confirmed that the defense of laches is available to a defendant when a plaintiff, in particular circu... More...
$650000 (05-11-2004 - NJ)<a href="http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a1900-01.opn.html" target="_new">Phyllis M. Clarke v. George Clark</a>
<P> Defendant George Clarke appeals from an order of the Chancery Division awarding plaintiff Phyllis Clarke $118,700 for alimony arrearages plus a separate award for interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Defendant contends that (1) plaintiff's claim for alimony arrears is barred by the doctrine of either laches, waiver, or equitable estoppel, and (2) the trial court erred in assessing intere... More...
$230526 (04-29-2003 - NJ)