# Knorr v. Smeal

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · November 24, 2003 · 178 N.J. 169

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753687

## Case

- **Full name:** Eleanor Knorr and Harold Knorr, Her Husband, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian C. Smeal, M.D. and South Jersey Hospital Systems, Elmer Division, Defendants-Respondents, and Curtis L. Lockwood, John Does 1 Through 7 and John Doe, Inc. 1 Through 7 Jointly Severally and/or in the Alternative, Defendants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** November 24, 2003
- **Citations:** 178 N.J. 169; 836 A.2d 794; 2003 N.J. LEXIS 1538
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Long
- **Judges:** Albin, Long
- **Cited by:** 274 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753687

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding laches is "invoked to deny a party enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and A-4751-18 3 unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party . . . and the prejudiced party acted in good faith believing that the…
- holding that defendant's failure to act on the lack of an affidavit of merit for fourteen months following the filing deadline warranted a rejection of defendant's attempt to enforce the deadline through the application of estoppel and laches
- holding that equitable estoppel and laches barred the granting of motion to dismiss for failure to file a timely affidavit where the defendant waited 14 months to file the motion, during which time the parties engaged in extensive discovery
- stating that equitable estoppel requires a showing that a party "engaged in conduct, either intentionally or under circumstances that induced reliance, and that [the other party] acted or changed [its] position to their detriment."
- holding that the defendants had waived their right to a jury trial requested in their initial pleadings by failing to press that right to the court thereafter

## Opinion text

Justice LONG,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. Plainly, reinstatement of the complaint is warranted. However, I stand by the *183 opinion I expressed in Ferreira v. Rancocas Orthopedic Assoc., 178 N.J. 144 , 836 A.2d 779 (2003) (Long, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part), underscoring what I view as the shortcomings of the proposed accelerated case management methodology.
Justice ZAZZALI and Judge PRESSLER join in this opinion.
For reversing and remanding — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and Judge PRESSLER (temporarily assigned) — 7.
Concurring and dissenting — Justices LONG, ZAZZALI and Judge PRESSLER (temporarily assigned) — 3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753687. Public record. Not legal advice.