Legal Opinion

Ponte v. Overeem

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 27, 2002PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

In this appeal we consider whether plaintiff, Robert Ponte, may recover for pain and suffering damages under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 59:12-3. At issue is whether an injury to plaintiffs right knee requiring arthroscopic surgery satisfies the threshold requirement under that Act. N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d. The Appellate Division reversed an order granting summary judgment for defendants, holding that plaintiff had raised a factual issue concerning whether his knee injury constituted a “permanent loss of a bodily function that is substantial.” Gilhooley v. County of Union, 164 N.J. 533,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gilhooley v. County of UnionSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2000
  2. Brooks v. OdomSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  3. Kahrar v. Borough of WallingtonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
  4. Schechter v. NJ DEPT. OF LAWNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
  5. Ponte v. OvereemNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hoag v. BrownNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2007
  2. Knowles v. Mantua Township Soccer Ass'nSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  3. Heenan v. GreeneNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
  4. Newsham v. Cumberland Reg. High Sch.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
  5. Pascucci v. Township of IrvingtonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API