Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): can serve to relieve a claimant of this requirement. Although the doctrine of substantial compliance has occasionally been applied in the tort claims context, it has been limited carefully to those situations in which the notice, although both timely and in writing, had technical deficiencies that did not deprive the public entity of the effective notice contemplated by the statute. See, e.g., Lebron v. Sanchez, 407 N.J.Super. 204, 214-15, 970 A.2d 399 (App.Div.2009) (concluding that notice that identified plaintiff and her attorney, set forth date and description of incident, listed injuries and demanded damages, but that did not specifically assert legal theory of negligent supervision substantially complied); Henderson v. Herman, 373 N.J.Super. 625, 633, 862 A.2d 1217 (App.Div.2004) (<HOLDING>); Tuckey v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 236 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act (B) holding that notice of claim against police dispatch and emergency transport personnel that failed to include names of specific dispatchers substantially complied (C) holding that plaintiff complied with plain language of the notice requirement when notice was mailed within statutory period although it was not received until after (D) holding that records regarding complaints against state police officers which would be exempt from disclosure when unredacted where no longer exempt after the names of state police troopers the names of complainants and all identifying information were redacted (E) recognizing emergency exception
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim was properly a statutory claim under the personnel management act