Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 N.J. Super. 588 - Rigberg v. Narduc Development Corp.

47 N.J. Super. 588 - Rigberg v. Narduc Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
July 1980
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1980

5 state decisions

201957196019701980decided

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

Relies on District Heights Apartments v. Noland Co. · Peerless Unit Ventilation Co. v. D'Amore Construction Co. · Earley v. Hall · William v. Mecum · Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues

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

  1. ““The question is, therefore, whether this delivery constituted a furnishing of material under the contract for which the notices of intention were filed. When items on a claim for the materials furnished within four months preceding the filing of a lien are relied on to validate the claim for materials furnished before that date, it must appear that the items within the limited period are so connected with the earlier items that together they constitute one debt. Bell v. Mecum, 75 N. J. L. 547 (E. & A. 1907) ; Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues, 76 N. J. Eq. 495 (Ch. 1909). See Annotation, 97 A. L. R. 780 (1935). The delivery must be directly related to the original contract for the furnishing of materials if Rigberg is to have the benefit of the mechanic’s lien. Work done under a new and independent arrangement after the completion of the original contract does not set the time running anew so as to preserve a lien for the earlier work.””
    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.