Guzman v. City of Perth Amboy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs claims were barred because plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8
• holding that plaintiff’s claims were barred because plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirement under N.J.S.A. 59:8-8
• noting that “the filing of a complaint would not be a substitute for the notice required by statute”
• in common understanding, mailing essentially means that the letter, with sufficient postage prepaid thereon, is put into the custody of the federal post office authorities
• “[T]he filing of a complaint would not be a substi tute, for the notice required by statute, whether the complaint was filed within the 90-day or the one-year period.”
• “Timely statutory notice is a prerequisite.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).