166 N.J. Super. 22 - Zaromb v. Borucka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 17 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... an evaluation must be made of each potential component of a particular controversy to determine the likely consequences of omission of that component from the action and its reservation for litigation another day. If those consequences are likely to mean that the litigants in the action as framed will, after final judgment therein is entered, be likely to have to engage in additional litigation in order to conclusively dispose of their respective bundles of rights and liabilities which derive from a single transaction or related series of transactions, then the omitted component must be regarded as constituting an element of the minimum mandatory unit of litigation. That result must obtain whether or not that component constitutes either an independent cause of action by technical common-law definition or an independent claim which, in the abstract, is separately adjudicable. [ Id. at 26-27 , 398 A. 2d 1308 (quoting Wm. Blanchard Co. v. Beach Concrete Co., Inc., 150 N.J. Super. 277, 293-94 , 375 A. 2d 675 (App.Div.), certif. den. 75 N.J. 528 , 384 A. 2d 507 (1977)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 264 N.J. Super. 385 - Busch v. Biggs · 280 N.J. Super. 154 - Baureis v. Summit Trust Co.