155 N.J. Super. 494 - Fitzgerald v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Obviously, it is plaintiff-claimant who is privy to the knowledge and information required to determine whether the threshold has been met. Defendant is in no position to undertake affirmative proof of plaintiff s nonqualification except as he may ferret out the requisite data through discovery. Whether or not compliance with the threshold is technically considered as an essential element of a cause of action in tort since the adoption of the no fault law, nevertheless it is a precondition to recovery. Fairness and efficiency dictate that plaintiff should have the burden of proving compliance with that threshold in order to establish a prima facie case. Since he has the requisite information he should be obligated to come forward with the same as part of his case. [Citations omitted.] “To shift this burden to defendant in the guise of categorizing the exemption as an affirmative defense does not accord with the realities inherent in the litigation process. And as a corollary, since plaintiff cannot recover in the absence of evidence of compliance with the threshold requirement, he should have the burden of proof on this issue — a burden which is not onerous or unreasonable.” 155 N.J. Super, at 499-500.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stang v. Caragianis

2. “The question of qualification or threshold compliance as a precondition to prosecute a tort action is ultimately a legal one primarily for judicial determination within the framework of the legislative enactment. Where a fact dispute must be determined as an element of that decisional process it is more appropriate, efficient and less confusing for the judge to decide that dispute as well. We find no justifiable reason for insistence upon the awkward and cumbersome interjection of a jury in this sphere of fact-finding. [ 155 N.J. Super. at 504 , 382 A. 2d 1162 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 250 N.J. Super. 461 - Oswin v. Shaw

3. “It is manifest that the purpose and design of the no fault law are to curtail litigation in the area of automobile personal injury claims by providing a system, of personal injury protection regardless of fault. This system, in turn, was intended to furnish expeditious and inexpensive compensation to an injured person for his economic losses within certain limitations and also to reduce the ever increasing premium rates for automobile liability insurance. [Id. at 497-98, 382 A.2d 1162 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perun v. Utica Mutual Insurance