Case law

Ross v. Transport of New Jersey

114 N.J. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 1989

N.J.S.A. 39:6-54 from any insurance obligation as a government agency or instrumentality, then this is consistent with policy considerations that limit the potential liability of government agencies through some type of immunity … An uninsured motorist is clearly “another *146 person” for whom the public entity may not be held liable. [ 202 N.J.Super. at 575 .]

Flanigan v. Munson

175 N.J. 597 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 3, 2003

Defendant qualified as administrator of Flanigan’s estate shortly after his wife’s death. Salberg then visited defendant’s home. … Lastly, we caution courts generally that a constructive trust is a powerful tool to be used only when the equities of a given ease clearly warrant it. This is such a case.

State v. Brimage

153 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 19, 1998

This Court stated in Leonardis II, supra, that although deference should be given to prosecutor’s determinations, “the prosecutor is not immune from the ban against arbitrariness in governmental decision-making.” 73 N.J. … Section III clearly states: “Nothing in this Directive shall be construed to preclude a county prosecutor from establishing and implementing a plea policy that provides standardized offers ... with a period of parole ineligibility

State v. Atlantic City & Shore Railroad

77 N.J.L. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 1, 1909

Under its articles of association it clearly had this *473 liberty. … The effect of this is not substantially modified by the device of leaving a few so-called “qualifying shares” outstanding in the names of individuals.

Cameron v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes & Moving Picture Operators of the United States & Canada, Local Union No. 384

118 N.J. Eq. 11 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1935

Certain rights, as of life, and personal liberty in the restricted sense, are clearly so absolute as to be unalienable; they cannot be bargained away. … Such is clearly its tendency. Decree reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. For affirmance — None.

Fobe Associates v. Mayor and Council of Demarest

74 N.J. 519 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 23, 1977

J. 428 (1970), established that multi-family housing does have the type of significant impact on the general welfare which is necessary to qualify as a “special reason” for granting a (d) variance: We specifically hold, as … We concluded that “[a] facial showing of invalidity is thus established, shifting to the municipality the burden of establishing valid superseding reasons for its action and non-action.” Id.

State v. Young

77 N.J. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1978

On September 18, 1973, the victim still alive, defendant was forever immune to prosecution for murder under the common law of New Jersey as it then stood. … Stat. 14:29 (1974). [1] Uncontradicted testimony of the medical examiner clearly established that the underlying cause of the victim's death was the gunshot wound to the cervical cord.

State v. Hackett

166 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 18, 2001

That is a significant change because in Bottigliero, White and South there was clearly some degree of inducement present. … Other states have recognized that juries are quite qualified to determine whether the statutory standard of endangering has been met. See, e.g., State v.

STUDENT PUBLIC INT. RESEARCH GROUP v. Byrne

86 N.J. 592 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1981

The question to be answered is simply whether the legislator was qualified for appointment at the time the appointment was made. Obviously Mrs. Curran was so qualified. … The ban clearly does not apply to an increase in compensation which is proposed subsequent to the appointment. [ 42 Op. Att'y Gen. 35 (1968).]

Investors Bank v. Javier Torres (082239) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 2020

Amicus curiae the New Jersey Business and Industry Association cites Appellate Division cases holding that a plaintiff in foreclosure may establish standing either by showing its possession of the note or establishing that … It is uncontested that the terms of the Note were established by the digital copy submitted to the trial court.

Ardan v. Board of Review

231 N.J. 589 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 2018

That action would establish a “legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from the enabling statutory authorization.” Id. at 331 , 478 A.2d 742 . … In short, Ardan failed to establish that no “suitable work” was available to her at the Medical Center.

Cox v. Bond Transportation, Inc.

53 N.J. 186 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 27, 1969

Moreover, the circumstances reveal that Bond expressly qualified McCaskill to operate his tractor as an interstate carrier. … The evidence clearly justified the presumption that McCaskill was engaged in authorized operation for Bond at the time of the accident.

Trumbull v. Gibbons

22 N.J.L. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1849

They do not-stand alone, but are qualified and controlled by subsequent dispositions in the will. … Clarh, 2 Addams 279, may be considered as establishing this doctrine.

Manahawkin Convalescent v. Frances O'neill (071033)

217 N.J. 99 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 11, 2014

established legal right of a consumer . . . as established by State or Federal law at the time the offer is made or the consumer contract is signed or the warranty, notice or sign is given … Manahawkin’s March 26, 2009 collection letter and Special Civil Part complaint failed to clearly articulate the nursing home’s legal rights.

Jackson v. Hooper

27 L.R.A.N.S. 658 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 28, 1910

. *595 As to the “nominal” directors the bill alleges in the plainest language that they were mere dummies, both in the New York company and its successor, the Illinois corporation, and says: “It was clearly understood that … The law never contemplated that persons engaged in business as partners may incorporate, with intent to obtain the advantages and immunities of a corporate form and then, Proteus-like, become at will a copartnership or a

Town of Kearny v. Division of Tax Appeals

35 N.J. 299 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1961

Particularizing the basic reason for refusing to consider whether on the merits the sales qualified as usable, the witness said: “By the Commissioner: Q. … The City of Passaic case, supra, clearly requires consideration of the facts adduced to demonstrate the error.

Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy (083379)(Hudson County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 13, 2021

Second, defendant argued that it relied in good faith on certain determinations that it qualified as a “trucking industry employer” and could therefore invoke the defense set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2. … If the statute’s plain language leads to a clearly understood result, the judicial inquiry is complete. Ibid.; Felix v.

State v. Megargel

143 N.J. 484 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 27, 1996

The Lieutenant added that Lee was not qualified to carry *490 firearms. … The court noted that the Legislature established a more severe punishment for aggravated manslaughter than for other first-degree offenses.

D'AGOSTINO v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

133 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 1993

Switzerland clearly is more interested than New Jersey in protecting job stability and preserving a right to refuse to violate Swiss public policy. [Id. at 321, 605 A.2d 252 .] … Under South Carolina law both the general contractor and subcontractor are immune from tort liability, while in New Jersey only the subcontractor is *539 immune from liability.

Witt v. Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders

94 N.J. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 6, 1983

As Chief Justice Weintraub once wrote, “[t]he court can intervene only when unreasonableness is clearly established.” Kennedy v. City of Newark, 29 N.J. 178, 185 (1959). Compare id. with Cullum v. Board of Educ. of N. … The act applies to gatherings of any public body “organized by law” and “collectively empowered as a multi-member voting body to spend public funds or affect persons’ rights,” provided that the gathering qualifies as a “meeting