Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 238 N.J. Super. 430 - Noye v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

238 N.J. Super. 430 - Noye v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
6
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 40 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Nelson v. Phoenix Resort Corp. (1994), Wade v. Kessler Institute (2002)

2 federal appellate · 40 district · 33 state decisions

540199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on 47 Cal. 3d 654 - Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. · Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. · Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America · Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc. · Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]n the absence of a contract, there can be no breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he majority opinion does not define `good faith and fair dealing' .... This is understandable. Concepts such as good faith and fair dealing are chameleonlike in character, necessarily assuming the colorings of the surroundings in which they find themselves.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “The Woolley contract is no more than the ordinary result of an acceptance by plaintiff, by continuing to work, of the terms of employment offered by defendant’s handbook”). 15 . Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident, (Compl-¶ 1), and the DRBA is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.