Carlin v. Cornell, Hegarty & Koch
This text of 692 A.2d 543 (Carlin v. Cornell, Hegarty & Koch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration of whether plaintiffs’ counsel acted reasonably in response to Judge Orlando’s December 16,1994, disposition of the motion of plaintiff Carlin, et al., to amend the complaint (motion denied with court directing counsel to file a new action) and Judge Fluharty’s January 3, 1995, disposition of plaintiff Allen’s motion to amend the complaint (motion denied with court concluding that [70]*70plaintiff could file a new action without adverse consequences under the Entire Controversy Doctrine). See Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424, 696 A.2d 633 (1997).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
692 A.2d 543, 151 N.J. 69, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 1266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlin-v-cornell-hegarty-koch-nj-1997.