Case law

State v. K.S.

220 N.J. 190 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 8, 2015

. *197 Rule 3:28 provides the administrative framework for the program, which is intended to offer an alternative to prosecution and to promote deterrence through rehabilitation for qualified applicants. … Accordingly, to overturn a prosecutor’s decision to exclude a defendant from the program, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly” show that the decision was a “patent and gross abuse of ... discretion.”

McGlynn v. New Jersey Public Broadcasting Authority

88 N.J. 112 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 19, 1981

Clearly, the Legislature’s general approach to the problem was to vest greater discretion in the Public Broadcasting Authority. … Some programs are clearly news, others are clearly debates, and still others fall somewhere between those two categories. 19 The greater the news content of a given program, the more the Authority can feel free to allow its

Grey ex rel. Simmons v. Mayor of Paterson

60 N.J. Eq. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 1900

The rights of such riparian owners are clearly stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lippincott, in this court, in the case of East Jersey Water Co. v. Bigelow, 31 Vr. 201 . … This provision was intended to qualify and limit the extent of the grant so that the implication could not arise, that Jersey City *392 might without further legislation divert the water for other purposes than a water-supply

State v. Laird

25 N.J. 298 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1957

The Lange doctrine was thus reaffirmed in its essential content of constitutional principle quite immune to legislative or judicial impairment. … Nothing demonstrates more clearly that the principles of one age are frequently invalidated by the developments of another.

Matthiessen & Weichers Refining Co. v. McMahon's Administrator

38 N.J.L. 536 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1876

The instruction that the agency of Shandly was revoked by the insanity of his principal, as qualified by the passage above quoted, was correct. … authorize him to sell out the establishment — to assign the whole property to a creditor in payment of a debt — was correct.

State v. DiFrisco

137 N.J. 434 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 1994

Rather, it was an attempt once again to persuade the jury that they were uniquely qualified to focus on this particular case. … Moreover, the State maintains that any error was clearly harmless, considering the verdict sheet and the court’s poll of the jury, both of which establish that the jury unanimously found the murder-for-hire factor.

State v. Yarrow

104 N.J.L. 512 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 22, 1928

Such is not the established practice, and is unusual; there being quite generally specified and served separate causes for relief and reversal under section 137 of the Criminal Procedure act; assignments and specifications … The assignment was thus qualified. ■ In State v. Lanto, 99 N. J.

Amodio v. Board of Commissioners of West New York

133 N.J.L. 220 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1945

We think it clearly expresses an intent to prohibit open shops of this class at times other than those prescribed. … The outstanding purpose was to establish the hours when such shops shall be closed to business, not to make open shops mandatory during the hours fixed for business. Defendants so read the regulation.

Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay

77 N.J. 439 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 9, 1978

IY, § 7, ¶ 11, legislative intent to supersede local powers must clearly be present. Kennedy v. City of Newark, 29 N. J. 178, 187 (1959); see also Summer v. Teaneck, 53 N. J. 548, 554 — 555 (1969). … Clearly he should, at the very least, acknowledge the relevance of the local zoning ordinance with respect to applications for private heliports and helistops.

In Re Petition of Nj American Water Co.

169 N.J. 181 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 2001

,]” In re Petition of Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 85 N.J. 520, 527, 428 A.2d 498 (1981), they are not immune from judicial review. … In the wake of Bell, “[t]he [BPU] has consistently permitted reasonable, nondiscriminatory charitable donations to qualify as operating expenses in a utility rate case.” N.J. Dep’t of the Pub. Advocate v. N.J.

In Re Alleged Improper Practice Under Section Xi

194 N.J. 314 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 9, 2008

The Panel then applied its own standard — a modified version of the one established in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. … Last, the Panel clearly believed that lower paying non-union security jobs threatened to eventually drive down the wages of PBA police officers. [1] 97 PAERP 28, at 22-23.

Clark v. City of Elizabeth

61 N.J.L. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1898

It was clearly a contract within the meaning of this statute as immediately involving the expenditure of public money. … or to be established.

Impey v. Board of Educ. of Borough of Shrewsbury

142 N.J. 388 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 14, 1995

Those enactments clearly authorize a local board of education to enter into a contract with an educational services commission to obtain speech correction services for its eligible pupils. … Specifically, petitioner asserts that tenured professional employees must be retained by local boards of education for positions for which they are qualified, and that the reduction-in-force statute, N.J.S.A 18A:28-9, cannot

Walck v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.

56 N.J. 533 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1970

The trial judge found that a right to recover had been established on both theories. … Under the circumstances, we hold the view that petitioner clearly failed to provide adequate credible evidence to establish that her husband’s heart attack was the product of an employment-induced risk, as we have defined

City Affairs Committee v. Board of Commissioners

132 N.J.L. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 28, 1945

Can you imagine what this Legislature will do if given the ‘green light’ to reduce or exempt railroad property entirely from taxation, with the record which the Legislature has already established? … It is not phrased in precisely the same language and does not contain the same qualifying clause, but it does turn upon the provision that the municipality “shall have all the powers necessary for its government.”

State v. Carter

91 N.J. 86 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 17, 1982

The rule established in Brady v. … In doing so, the prosecutor must clearly avoid reflecting upon a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

State v. Sewell

127 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 17, 1992

That requires first a determination of whether the robbery statute clearly indicates a legislative intent to impose strict liability. Clearly it does not. … The State argued that the trial court’s jury instruction sufficed to establish a culpability requirement.

Service Armament Co. v. Hyland

70 N.J. 550 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1976

These guns must be possessed as curiosities or for their ornamental or historical value to qualify for the exception. … It does not evaluate senses or establish an enduring hierarchy of importance among them.

Exxon Corp. v. Hunt

97 N.J. 526 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 1984

This appeal focuses on the taxing structures established by each of the foregoing Acts. … In performing this function the President "shall consider any priorities established by the States."

Meeker v. MEEKER

52 N.J. 59 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1968

In her appeal to this court plaintiff argues that application of the rule deprives her of due process, equal protection of the law, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution. … Since there clearly was a factual dispute as to defendant Meeker’s actual residence, that question should not have been resolved on conflicting or disputed affidavits, but only after a full hearing.