Shah v. Shah

184 N.J. 125 (2005)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Shah v. Shah

New Jersey Supreme Court
184 N.J. 125 (2005)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

Gayatri Shah (plaintiff) and her husband, Mayank K. Shah (defendant) moved from India to Illinois. Gayatri left Mayank because of domestic abuse and moved to New Jersey. On August 22, 2003, Gayatri sued Mayank pursuant to New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 (PDVA). The court issued an ex parte temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for September 4, 2003. After the hearing, the court amended the temporary restraining order to be in effect until September 23, 2003. On September 23, the court amended the temporary restraining order for a second time. The amendment provided that the temporary restraining order would remain in effect and required Mayank to pay Gayatri an initial sum of $1,500 for support and then $300 per week until the final hearing scheduled for October 9. Mayank filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the court lacked subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. Mayank also moved to dismiss the domestic-violence complaint on the same ground. The trial court denied the requests. Mayank appealed. The appellate division held that Gayatri had a lawful presence in New Jersey and was therefore entitled to protection under the state’s laws. Accordingly, the appellate division held that the trial court could issue the temporary restraining order without having personal jurisdiction over Mayank. However, the appellate division held that the issued order was a hybrid order because it granted protective and affirmative relief by requiring Mayank to pay support. The appellate division warned that only a court with personal jurisdiction could enforce the order if Mayank did not comply with the affirmative requirements. Mayank sought review of the judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rivera-Soto, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership