Case law

State v. Hudson County News Co.

41 N.J. 247 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 16, 1963

Actual knowledge of the contents of the material is not the sine qua non to establish scienter. … We note that the State purported to qualify the lay witnesses as “average” men. No witness can qualify as an “average man.” This is a standard solely for the jury to determine.

Gonzalez v. Wilshire Credit Corp.

207 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 29, 2011

It insists that the foreclosure judgment and agreements do not provide Wilshire with CFA immunity. … Those agreements clearly establish privity between plaintiff and U.S. Bank and Wilshire. B. The key issue before us is whether the CFA governs extensions of credit after a foreclosure judgment.

State v. Brown

170 N.J. 138 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 3, 2001

The lower courts conclusion on that issue, however, was clearly in error. … L.Rev. 108, 115 (1968) ("In short, Santos immunizes the sovereign in criminal cases from application of the admissions exception (and perhaps all exceptions) to the hearsay rule.

Redmond v. New Jersey Historical Society

132 N.J. Eq. 464 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 18, 1942

The burden is on complainants properly to establish ownership — absolute or qualified — and the right to exclusive possession where such ownership is denied. Pinlenics v. Menwig, 113 N. J. Law 4, 5; 172 Atl. … Clearly, the possession of the Society did not begin nor did it continue to be (prior to 1938) in “hostility.” Its possession was not “adversary.”

Alicea v. New Brunswick Theological Seminary

128 N.J. 303 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1992

Plaintiff clearly played a ministerial role at NBTS. … However, we cannot enforce contractual provisions, like those in the NBTS employment manual, that are both vague and clearly optional.

Marsh v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

152 N.J. 137 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 18, 1997

The Act created the New Jersey Spill Compensation Fund (Spill Fund or Fund), which provides for qualified claimants reimbursement of the cleanup costs for environmental contamination. … However, the Appellate Division found that Marsh’s mother was clearly a party “responsible for a hazardous substance” within the meaning of llg(c) because she should have known of the existence of the leaking tanks on her

Northwest Covenant Medical Center v. Fishman

167 N.J. 123 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 23, 2001

But even if a hospital qualifies for a subsidy, it does not necessarily receive a full “reimbursement” covering all of its actual charity *129 care expenses; rather, a hospital receives only its proportionate share of the … We recommend that the DHSS promulgate regulations establishing standards and procedures for contesting allocations of charity care subsidies to avoid many of the problems presented in this case. III.

State v. Shelley

205 N.J. 320 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 2011

However, none definitively establish whether a kindergarten class, standing unconnected to other elementary grades, constitutes an "elementary school." … During the legislative process, day care providers, nursery schools, and preschool programs clearly were removed from the bill's reach.

State v. Lavelle

54 N.J. 315 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1969

Following a hearing, the Board undoubtedly concluded that if it were not for the unpaid fine, he qualified for parole. … Should the offender remain free even though the effort to correct him by a fine has failed because he is economically immune?

Trinity Cemetery Ass'n v. Township of Wall

170 N.J. 39 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 8, 2001

The transfer from the DEP to the DCA, as discussed above, sought to place mausoleum construction under the jurisdiction of the most qualified administrative agency *56 to handle construction issues. … The Cemetery Act clearly precludes only the latter of these rights. Quite apart from the language of the Act, the legislative history of N.J.S.A. 8A:3-14.1 supports that conclusion.

Housing Authority v. Suydam Investors, LLC

177 N.J. 2 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 2003

Most important here, the Legislature again amended the Act in 1993 to provide governmental entities that *19 acquire property by eminent domain with qualified immunity from costs associated with the cleanup and removal of … Indeed, scholars denominate that well-established methodology as the “trust-escrow” approach, which has received “widespread recognition.” 7A Nichols, supra, § 13B.03(4), at 13B-68 (Patrick J. Rohan & Melvin A.

State v. DiRienzo

53 N.J. 360 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 1969

The number of items was clearly irrelevant to this defense. We find no error. … Einally, the record clearly demonstrates that there was ample evidence upon which the jury could base a verdict of guilty.

Township of Chester v. Panicucci

62 N.J. 94 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1973

Proof of that occurrence would, of course, establish possession of a loaded gun, the act both the ordinance and the statute forbid. … Plaintiff's ordinance, as we have said, is a copy of the quoted portion of N.J.S.A. 23:4-16 as it existed when the ordinance was adopted except for the omission of the qualifying phrase "for the purpose of hunting, taking

State v. Buda

195 N.J. 278 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2008

s statements qualify under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, our task is not complete. … That claim, standing alone, is insufficient to establish such a relationship.

State v. Richard Perez (072624)

220 N.J. 423 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 2015

The statute was amended again in 1999 to establish a mandatory-minimum term of imprisonment. L. 1999 c. 277, § 1. … PSL must similarly be considered a punitive rather than a remedial or administrative obligation of a defendant convicted of a qualifying sexual offense.

Gaede v. Carroll

114 N.J. Eq. 524 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 5, 1933

Complainant qualified as executor and has since been acting as such executor. Testator left him surviving his widow, Audrey L. … This rule has been uniformly applied in this state, when the testator has not clearly expressed an intention that the life tenant should enjoy the property in specie. In Ackerman’s Adm’rs v. Vreeland’s Ex’r, 14 N. J.

State v. Johnson

118 N.J. 639 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1990

Not only was the trial court’s finding not “clearly a mistaken one,” State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 , 199 A.2d 809 (1964), it was solidly based on the record. … In none of these cases, however, was the incriminating evidence admitted to establish the offense for which the defendant had been illegally detained.

Township of Voorhees v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

149 N.J. 119 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1997

The DEP moved for summary disposition, asserting that Voorhees qualified as an “owner” under the plain meaning of the Closure Act. … To the extent that [the] DEP determined that monitoring wells are required to be installed and maintained on landfill sites closed prior to January 1982, the Fund established by the Closure Act is clearly authorized to pay

State v. Rockafellow

6 N.J.L. 405 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1796

It is a reasonable and lawful answer to an accusation, that it has not been preferred in the manner, or by the persons, which the law recognizes; and it results from the provisions of the statute, as clearly as if it had … In that case it was not argued, -that Sharp ought to have challenged the jurors who were affirmed, oh the ground of their not being Quakers, when they came to be qualified ; and though no such answer was given, it is equally

State v. Worthy

141 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 1995

Our unanimous agreement that a cooperative relationship between the federal and state investigators would call for the application of the Act was not qualified by any condition relating to the fact that the informant called … This review is clearly critical to achieving the desired protection of privacy that the Legislature envisioned, especially in light of its singular nature.