Caballero v. Martinez

869 A.2d 939, 376 N.J. Super. 175, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMarch 10, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 A.2d 939 (Caballero v. Martinez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Caballero v. Martinez, 869 A.2d 939, 376 N.J. Super. 175, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78 (N.J. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal following an evidentiary hearing of his complaint against the Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund for automobile accident non-economic damages. The complaint was dismissed based upon the trial judge’s conclusion that, at the time of the accident, he was not a “qualified person” as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6-62. On appeal, plaintiff contends:

POINT I: THE TRIAL COURT DISREGARDED THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IN FINDING THAT THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FROM THE UNSATISFIED CLAIM AND JUDGMENT FUND.
POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED EXISTING CASELAW IN DETERMINING THE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.
[176]*176POINT III: THE PLAINTIFF WAS DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW WHEN THE COURT RULED HE WAS NOT A RESIDENT OF NEW JERSEY.

We have considered these contentions and reject them. We affirm for the reasons set forth by Judge Jamie S. Perri whose written opinion is reported at 376 N.J.Super. 223, 869 A.2d 969 (Law Div.2005).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Caballero v. Martinez
897 A.2d 1026 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
869 A.2d 939, 376 N.J. Super. 175, 2005 N.J. Super. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caballero-v-martinez-njsuperctappdiv-2005.