Case law

In Re the Liquidation of Integrity Insurance

193 N.J. 86 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 13, 2007

Under the FDP, actuarial estimation would follow well-established and commercially reasonable valuation practices that are standard in the insurance industry. See generally Fin. … If the statute clearly barred such a procedure, I would agree. I do not agree, however, that the statute is clear on that point.

Bechler v. Parsekian

36 N.J. 242 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 11, 1961

Persons involved in a traffic accident resulting in a fatality where a violation of the traffic regulation provisions of Title 39 is established. 3. … That concern does not end with the issuance of original licenses to qualified drivers, for it is equally vital that the drivers remain so at all times and be fit whenever they apply for their renewal licenses. Cf.

Den v. Geiger

9 N.J.L. 225 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1827

The phrase “ private examination ” is qualified and explained by the superadded words “ apart from her husband,.” … If the law were established according to the views of the defendant not one verdict in ten would stand.

Michaels v. Brookchester, Inc.

26 N.J. 379 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 31, 1958

Exceptions to the broad immunity inevitably developed. … The kitchen cabinets are clearly a part of the building. We are satisfied the statute required defendant to maintain them in good repair.

Cowan v. Doering

111 N.J. 451 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 1988

Because it was clearly foreseeable that defendants’ conduct created a risk that plaintiff would engage in self-damaging acts, the jury’s rejection of the intervening causation was fully supported by the evidence. … Dinger, 106 N.J. 469, 494-95 (1987) (eliminating immunity for private water companies because duty to exercise reasonable care in supplying water to fight fires will deter unreasonable conduct); People Express v.

Stellmah v. Hunterdon Cooperative G.L.F. Service, Inc.

47 N.J. 163 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 9, 1966

Q. 1941, c. 324, and answers to interrogatories she had propounded to Charles Coderre, Esquire, an attorney of the Quebec .Bar, who qualified as an expert on Quebec Adoption Law. … This type of adoption is established by certain facts clearly indicating a relationship equivalent to that created by a legal adoption between the child and the persons who desire to adopt him legally, i. e., the signing

Union Terminal Cold Storage Co. v. Spence

17 N.J. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1954

Justice Wachenfeld clearly explained the mischief the statute was intended to remedy when he said for this court: "The evil which the `freeze' statute sought to remedy was repeated yearly increases in the assessed value of … The action of the municipal governing body is qualified by the authority vested in the governing body, R.S. 54:4-99, to effectuate the adjustment of taxes "as it shall deem equitable and just and be for the best interests

F.F. v. N.F.

180 N.J. 74 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 2004

To hold otherwise would grant heirship immunity to parents of children who are born out of wedlock and do not establish parentage before reaching age twenty-three. That would terminate many claims before they accrue. … A claim for child support, which would affect the devolution of an estate, is clearly included within that definition.

Casamasino v. City of Jersey City

158 N.J. 333 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 1999

to hold over until their successors are appointed and qualified); and N.J.S.A. 54:3-3 (permitting members of county boards of taxation to hold over until their successors are appointed and qualified); tax assessors, justices … The Court's disposition renders plaintiff a de facto holdover assessor, vulnerable to political reprisals or removal in direct conflict with the Legislature's clearly expressed objective.

Bank of New York v. Black

26 N.J. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1958

situated as follows: If my wife, JULIA KINGSBURY BYRD shall survive me, one third thereof to BANK OE NEW YORK AND EIETH AVENUE BANK, a corporation of New York, having its principal office at 48 Wall Street, New York City, duly qualified … Eq. 460 (Ch. 1933) (“clearly show”); and Board of Home Missions, etc. v. Saltmer, 125 N. J. Eq. 33 (Ch. 1939) (“must clearly be shown” and “must not leave it uncertain”).

State v. Nero

195 N.J. 397 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2008

R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 321-22 , 873 A.2d 511 (2005) (explaining that “[a] claim of deficiency in a jury charge to which no objection is interposed ‘will not be considered unless it qualifies as plain error’ ” (quoting Hock, … Wilder, 193 N.J. 398, 406 , 939 A.2d 781 (2008) (explaining "the present, well-established standard for determining the sufficiency of the evidence against an accused on a ... motion for acquittal ... requiring that] the

Berman v. Allan

80 N.J. 421 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 1979

Wade, supra, clearly establishes that a woman possesses a constitutional right to decide whether her fetus should be aborted, at least during the first trimester of *432 pregnancy. … Clearly the doctors owed a professional duty of care to all of the plaintiffs in this case, the child while unborn as well as her parents.

Theer v. Philip Carey Co.

133 N.J. 610 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1993

Medical experts were able to establish a significant but unmeasurable risk of contracting cancer. … Plaintiff did not suffer from any injury or condition clearly related to asbestos exposure. Further, plaintiff was a heavy smoker.

Inhabitants of Perth Amboy v. Smith

19 N.J.L. 52 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1842

R. 271, 275, and others of the same kind are cited to establish that position. … clearly, to indemnify the township for the expenses it might be put to, in providing for these persons.

Vreeland v. Byrne

72 N.J. 292 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 11, 1977

The word "term" as used in this statutory phrase clearly means term of office as legislator. … We submit that the ineligibility clause quite definitely and clearly falls into this latter category.

Dougherty v. Department of Human Services

91 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 8, 1982

According to the majority, only the agency is qualified or legally empowered to decide whether to apply its regulations rigidly or to waive them in appropriate instances. … Most applications of a regulation will be routine, clearly fitting within both the fact situation intended to be covered by the regulation and *17 the policy underlying it.

TRINITY CEMETERY ASS'N v. Wall Tp.

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 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.

Matter of Greenberg

155 N.J. 138 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 17, 1998

Although the federal indictment against Sears was dismissed after he was given transactional immunity in return for his testimony, the ethics charges against him stemmed from his participation in the delivery of a $200,000 … The tenor of such testimony clearly reflects their high esteem for Harry L.

Mahoney v. Mahoney

91 N.J. 488 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 15, 1982

. *498 A person qualified by education for a given profession may choose not to practice it, may fail at it, or may practice in a speciality, location or manner which generates less than the average income enjoyed by fellow … In a “fault” divorce, however, the court “may consider also the proofs made in establishing such ground in determining ... alimony . .. that is fit, reasonable and just.” N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.

Landwehr v. Landwehr

111 N.J. 491 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1988

The Appellate Division dismissed the first two contentions as “clearly without merit.” And it held that the prior Appellate Division decision in this case, which concluded that all of the settlement proceeds that Mr. … Painter, supra, 65 N.J. at 214 , that the “burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset will rest upon the spouse who asserts it.”