Skip to main content

Andrew McCarrell v. Hoffman-La Roach, Inc.(076524)

Citations

  • 227 N.J. 569
  • 153 A.3d 207
  • 2017 WL 344449
  • 2017 N.J. LEXIS 19

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • applying New Jersey statute of limitations to Alabama-plaintiff’s claims because Alabama’s relationship to the dispute was not more significant than that of forum-state New Jersey
  • noting \[i]t was within the province of the board of adjustment to accept or reject the opinions \ of an expert witness
  • engaging in a choice of law analysis between Georgia’s ten-year statute of repose for products liability cases and New Jersey’s two-year 21 statute of limitations
  • court should apply law of the state with the “most significant relationship to important issues in the case”
  • “[S]ection 142 of the Second Restatement is now the operative choice-of-law rule for resolving statute-of-limitations conflicts.”
  • first step in choice-of-law analysis is whether a “true conflict” exists; when none appears, the forum’s law governs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Albin, Rabner, Lavecchia, Fernandez-Vina, Solomon, Timpone, Albin'S, Patterson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.