Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Crescent Pk. Tenants Assoc. v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N.Y

58 N.J. 98 (N.J. 1971)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Crescent Pk. Tenants Assoc. v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N.Y

233 Citing cases

  1. People for Open Government v. Roberts

    397 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2008)   Cited 35 times
    Noting the standard of a "slight" private interest, coupled with the public interest

    [N.J. State Chamber of Commerce v. N.J. Election Law Enforcement Comm'n, 82 N.J. 57, 69, 411 A.2d 168 (1980).] The beacon we follow was lit in Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98, 275 A.2d 433 (1971). At the outset, the Court took note of the fact that "New Jersey cases have historically taken a much more liberal approach on the issue of standing than have the federal cases."

  2. Hoboken Environ. v. German Seaman's Mission

    161 N.J. Super. 256 (Ch. Div. 1978)   Cited 7 times
    Holding a group of residents and taxpayers, and committee dedicated to preserving the city's historic sites, had standing to bring suit where there was substantial public interest and demolition would have significant impact on State and local efforts to preserve historical areas

    den. 74 N.J. 278 (1977); accord, Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98, 101 (1971) (incorporated, nonprofit tenant association granted standing to maintain action against landlord); see In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 34-35 (father of incompetent daughter granted standing to assert her constitutional rights), cert. den. Garger v. United States, 429 U.S. 922, 97 S.Ct. 319, 50 L.Ed.2d 289 (1976); Elizabeth Fed'l S. L. Ass'n v. Howell, 24 N.J. 488, 503 (1957) (savings loan association had standing to attack Banking Commissioner's grant of permission to another institution to establish branch office).

  3. N.J. Cit. Act. v. Riviera Motel

    296 N.J. Super. 402 (App. Div. 1997)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that the plaintiff association had standing to bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of its disabled members, because the association had an interest in ensuring that the defendant complied with the statute's accessibility requirements

    In order to possess standing, the plaintiff must have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation, a real adverseness with respect to the subject matter, and there must be a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will suffer harm in the event of an unfavorable decision. New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Comm'n, supra, 82 N.J. at 67, 411 A.2d 168; Crescent Pk. Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); In re Tp. of Howell, 254 N.J. Super. 411, 416, 603 A.2d 959 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 127 N.J. 548, 606 A.2d 362 (1991). [T]he essential purposes of the standing doctrine in New Jersey. . . . are to assure that the invocation and exercise of judicial power in a given case are appropriate.

  4. Steinhardt v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission (In re Congressional Districts by New Jersey Redistricting Commission)

    No. R-3-2021 (N.J. Feb. 3, 2022)

    The State Constitution does not limit "our judicial power to actual cases and controversies." Camden County, 170 N.J. at 448 (quoting Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107-08 (1971)).

  5. Matter of Congressional Districts by New Jersey Redistricting Commission

    249 N.J. 561 (N.J. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Rejecting the challenge to the Congressional redistricting maps in part on the basis that the plaintiffs waived their conflict-of-interest claim

    The State Constitution does not limit "our judicial power to actual cases and controversies." Camden County, 170 N.J. at 448, 790 A.2d 158 (quoting Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107-08, 275 A.2d 433 (1971) ). At the same time, courts do not render advisory opinions or "entertain ... plaintiffs who are ‘mere intermeddlers,’ or are merely interlopers or strangers to the dispute."

  6. Jen Electric, Inc. v. County of Essex

    197 N.J. 627 (N.J. 2009)   Cited 60 times
    Recognizing an unsuccessful bidder has standing to challenge a public contract award

    We return to first principles. New Jersey has long held the view that litigation is "appropriately confined . . . to those situations where the litigant's concern with the subject matter evidenced a sufficient stake and real adverseness." Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971). Under New Jersey's standing rules, "[e]ntitlement to sue requires a sufficient stake and real adverseness with respect to the subject matter of the litigation [and a] substantial likelihood of some harm visited upon the plaintiff in the event of an unfavorable decision is needed for the purposes of standing."

  7. In re Vicinage 13 of the N.J. Superior Court

    454 N.J. Super. 330 (App. Div. 2018)   Cited 8 times
    Rejecting the defendant's argument that the federal district court judge's assessment of issues related to the propriety of removal was the law of the case, stating that it did not agree with the federal judge's assessment, which had only been made in the context of determining whether 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) had been satisfied, rather than in the substantive context it was now before the appellate division

    New Jersey has traditionally taken a much more liberal approach on the issue than have the federal courts. In re Camden Cty., 170 N.J. 439, 451, 790 A.2d 158 (2002) ; Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 101, 275 A.2d 433 (1971). Our courts are not bound by the "case or controversy" requirement that governs federal courts under U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2. Salorio v. Glaser, 82 N.J. 482, 490, 414 A.2d 943 (1980).

  8. Belmont Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Geibel

    432 N.J. Super. 52 (App. Div. 2013)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that damages were subject to apportionment under the CNA in a construction defect case in which the plaintiff asserted claims under the CFA as well as common-law fraud

    Historically, New Jersey courts have taken “a much more liberal approach on the issue of standing than have the federal [courts].” Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 101, 275 A.2d 433 (1971) (holding tenant's association had standing to maintain action against landlord concerning matters of common interest). And both our Legislature and courts “have given wide recognition to suits by associations.”

  9. In re New Jersey State Contract

    422 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 2011)   Cited 24 times

    Our courts have traditionally taken a generous view of standing in most contexts. Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107-12, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); N.J. Builders Ass'n v. Mayor Twp. Comm. of Bernards Twp., 219 N.J.Super. 539, 530 A.2d 1254 (App.Div. 1986), aff'd, 108 N.J. 223, 528 A.2d 555 (1987). In 1971, Justice Jacobs emphasized the critical difference between the federal approach to standing and that employed in this State; he wrote:

  10. O'Shea v. New Jersey Schools Construction Corp.

    388 N.J. Super. 312 (App. Div. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that exercise of original jurisdiction is appropriate when an issue is a question of law, no facts bearing upon that issue are in dispute, and the issue implicates the public interest

    While we do not render advisory opinions or function in the abstract, our courts have historically taken a liberal approach to the issue of standing. See Crescent Park Tenants Ass'n v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 101, 275 A.2d 433 (1971). Standing may be found as long as the parties seeking relief have a sufficient personal stake in the controversy to assure adverseness and the controversy is capable of resolution by the courts.