Breaking with precedent set by nearly every other state court, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that cohabitation is not an absolute requirement for a successful claim for palimony but is only one of a number of factors a judge should consider. The 6-1 majority said a plaintiff in a palimony case need only prove that there was a "marital-type relationship," and not that the couple lived together for some period.
June 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Cohabitation is not an absolute requirement for a successful claim for palimony but is only one of a number of factors a judge should consider, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
A 6-1 majority, breaking with precedent set by nearly every other state court, said a plaintiff in a palimony case need only prove that there was a “marital-type relationship” rather than show that the couple lived together for some period.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
