Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 Jed Goldfarb v. David Solimine -- rank: 1000

... is found in a regulation, it is reinforced by statute: N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h) declares that “[n]o person who has made ... the contract” for a violation of the Securities Law. See N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h). In Justice Albin’s view, the majority’s importation ... when its “making” is in violation of the Act. N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h). Defendant’s argument equates the job offer he made ... Act’s writing requirement -- with “the contract” mentioned in N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h). Thus, defendant contends, plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim is ... them: that agreement -- “the contract” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h) -- violated the Act’s writing requirement, and so plaintiff ... is found in a regulation, it is reinforced by statute: N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(h) declares that “[n]o person who has ...

docket:	a-24-19
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2021-02-18
status:
citation:
Document Size:	70354

2 RICHARD GREENBERG v. PRO SHARES TRUST -- rank: 798

... Greenberg, which violated the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law (NJUSL), N.J.S.A. 49:3-71, and sought compensatory damages, interest, counsel fees, and costs of ... would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person . . . . [ N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(a)(2) to (4).] Pursuant to subsection (c), [a]ny ... and any loss due to the advice, together with interest . . . . [ N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(c).] Further, liability may extend to [e]very person who ... sale or in the conduct giving rise to the liability. [ N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(d).] A plaintiff must prove "that the seller or giver ... intended to deceive the buyer or recipient of investment advice." N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(b)(1). Our Supreme Court has examined this statutory language ... that he did "not know[] of the untruth or omission." N.J.S.A. 49:3-71(a)(2); see also Kaufman , supra , 165 N.J. ...

docket:	a0759-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-04-04
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	52058

3 Susan Kaufman v. i-Stat Corporation, et als. -- rank: 596

... reach the issuer of her shares or its officers. See N.J.S.A. 49:3-71. ����Although requiring privity can seem harsh when, as here, the ...

docket:	a-49-99
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2000-07-27
status:
citation:	165 N.J. 94
Document Size:	89278

4 JEFFREY LIPKOWITZ v. HAMILTON SURGERY CENTER, LLC. -- rank: 469

... requires that appellants prove that they suffered a "financial detriment." N.J.S.A. 49:3-71 (b)(1). Looking first at the plain language of the ...

docket:	a4489-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-08-04
status:	published
citation:	415 N.J. Super. 29 999 A.2d 1199
Document Size:	30693

5 NICHOLAS BROWN v. WILLIAM C. MARTUCCI -- rank: 445

... and the court shall determine the applicable limitations period. Compare N.J.S.A. 49:3-71 (action for deceit under Uniform Securities Law shall be brought ...

docket:	a3391-10
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-03-12
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	32519

6 MARGARET LEE v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK -- rank: 349

... does not state that it provides an exclusive remedy. See N.J.S.A. 49:3-71. Because plaintiff filed her common law complaint within six years ...

docket:	a1517-06
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2008-08-27
status:	published
citation:	402 N.J.Super. 346 954 A.2d 499
Document Size:	36102