Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the destruction of potentially relevant evidence before the filing of the successive action did not give rise to substantial prejudice
• determining that it is left to the discretion of the court to require \notice of the action be given to any non-party\
• stating that the entire controversy doctrine is a “claim preclusion rule”
• noting that the doctrine finds its support in our State Constitution and the goal \'that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely determined[.]'\ (quoting N.J. Const. art. VI, § III, ¶ 4)
• noting that the doctrine finds its support in our State Constitution and the goal \that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely determined\ (quoting N.J. Const. art. VI, § III, ¶ 4)
• noting that the doctrine finds its support in our State Constitution and the goal \that all matters in controversy between the parties may be completely determined\ (quoting N.J. Const. art. VI, § III, ¶ 4)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).