Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided November 15, 2010No. A-15 September Term 2009Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Rivera-Soto
To the extent the majority concludes that the economic loss doctrine bars recovery in this case, I concur. In respect of the remainder of the majority’s opinion, however, I dissent substantially for the reasons so ably set forth in Judge Carchman’s majority opinion. Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 406 N.J.Super. 453, 455-73, 968 A.2d 192 (App.Div.2009). I add only the following two points.
First, the Appellate Division’s decision consists of both a majority opinion and an opinion concurring in the judgment only.1 That concurring-in-the-judgment opinion gratuitously addresses a question that,…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1993
- Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J. M. Martinac & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wausau Tile, Inc. v. County Concrete Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1999
- Jimenez v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.