180 N.J. Super. 620 - Cassano v. Durham’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 1998
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kozlowski v. Kozlowski · Schmoll v. Creecy · Turon v. J. & L. CONSTRUCTION CO. · In Re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Holibaugh · 487 F. Supp. 1078 - Bulloch v. United States
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is significant that despite the attraction and convenience of live-in arrangements to a segment of the population, provision was not made (in the 1978 amendment) for unmarried cohabitants. The Legislature made provision for inheritance by other persons such as children, parents and others within degrees of kinship. It excluded persons who failed to survive the decedent by 120 hours. If the statute was designed to accommodate unmarried companions, such legislative intent would have found expression in the law. [ 180 N.J. Super. at 625 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There is no constitutional impediment to the legislative determination to designate one, who has entered into the bonds of matrimony with decedent, as a beneficiary under the Wrongful Death Act among those who will inherit under the intestacy statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“shall be for the exclusive benefit of the persons entitled to take any intestate personal property of the decedent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.