Case law

Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co.

184 N.J. 415 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 2005

And if so, it would pre-empt all nonidentical state standards established in tort actions covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable federal standard, even if the federal standard merely established a minimum … Such generally applicable "private rights and remedies... hardly qualify as standards" because they are "more ex post [and] reactive than prescriptive or normative." Pedraza v.

Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Podvin

10 N.J. 199 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 1952

Zingale held all of the outstanding stock of the corporation except two qualifying shares issued to his co-directors, Benjamin A. Rimm, an attorney, who organized the corporation, and Mr. Rimm’s secretary. … Plaintiffs were clearly entitled to have the personal money judgment include the $4,000 deposit paid in 1948.

Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc.

129 N.J. 479 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 6, 1992

[completion of the [pjroject shall also be established.” … However, the testimony of Sands’s personnel clearly established that Sands intended to increase its profits by attracting more patrons from the boardwalk.

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.”

Robbins v. Thies

117 N.J.L. 389 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1937

An examination of the evidence (which was conflicting in some essentials) shows that the jury might nevertheless find established the following facts: On August 20th, 1935, at five-one p. m., daylight saving time, there was … The trial judge decided, in view of the evidence respecting their qualifications, that both were qualified, and of this the defendant complains.

Keyes Martin & Co. v. Director, Div. of Purchase

99 N.J. 244 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1985

(Venet) as the best qualified remaining agency. … Despite its acknowledgement that its appellate function was clearly circumscribed, the Appellate Division in this case vacated the Director’s award.

Kellog v. Platt

33 N.J.L. 328 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1869

Generally, in books of authority, the words ouster, or eviction, are used in this connection in a qualified sense, different from the ordinary acceptation of those terms. … It is an established rule, that all tilings should be pleaded according to their legal effect.

Alejandra Padilla v. Young Il An

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 2024

Subsequent cases continued to rely on, qualify, or distinguish Stewart, Abraham, and Gray, somewhat confounding our commercial sidewalk liability law. To illustrate, in Nielsen v. … Applying the factors courts have used for decades to determine whether a commercial property has the capacity to generate income, defendants’ property clearly has no such capacity and no means to defray the costs of possible

Marchitto v. Central R. Co. of NJ

9 N.J. 456 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 19, 1952

Clearly it is not. In Moore v. Illinois C. R. Co., 312 U. S. 630 , 61 S. Ct. 754 , 85 L. … To accept this argument, which incidentally does not go to the question of jurisdiction, would be in effect to grant these defendants immunity from liability, for there is no assurance whatever that the plaintiff’s claim

Oliver v. Phelps

20 N.J.L. 180 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1843

sentence, in relation to one point in a cause, taken by itself, and as if it constituted the whole charge, may be easily shown to be erroneous; but when read in connection with the rest of the charge, and explained and qualified … But the exception should be strictly confined to that misstatement, and by being made known at the moment, would often enable the court to correct an erroneous expression, or to explain or qualify it, in such a maimer as

State v. Williams

113 N.J. 393 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 8, 1988

If they can take it out of their mind and lay it aside and listen to the evidence here presented in the Court, and the law, and he clearly indicated to me he could do that. He is qualified. You're denied. MR. … the composition of the total qualified jury panel.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 68 v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

147 N.J. 433 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 11, 1997

Through interstate compacts, states can establish bi-state agencies. On receiving the consent of Congress, the agency becomes a *440 creature of the creator states and the federal government. Hess v. Port Auth. … Thus, the Compact qualifies as a “congressionally sanctioned interstate compact the interpretation of which presents a question of federal law.”

Christian Mission John 316 v. Passaic City (083487) (Tax Court & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 2020

The issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary or final, does not establish a bright line that must be crossed before a tax exemption may be granted. … Hackensack City] is clearly distinguishable . . . because the exemption there was located across the street from the hospital which was entitled to an exemption and was being built on land that was not exempt when construction

State v. Ball

141 N.J. 142 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1995

Clearly, courts have not found any one uncontroversial definition of “enterprise.” … We are confident that the Legislature intended to confer no such immunity.

Attorney-General ex rel. Pierson v. Cady

84 N.J.L. 54 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 1913

Under the rule of that ease it would clearly have been permissible for the legislature to provide in a separate act for the organization of the board of freeholders in counties of the first and third class. … This rule is thoroughly established, and it is unnecessary to refer to later cases other than Allison v. Corker, 38 Id. 596.

Sensient Colors Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

193 N.J. 373 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 29, 2008

If we are to have harmonious relations with our sister states, absent extenuating circumstances sufficient to qualify as special equities, comity and common sense counsel that a New Jersey court should not interfere with … Clearly, the initial burden should be on the party challenging the appropriateness of the court exercising jurisdiction.

Abbott v. Beth Israel Cemetery Ass'n of Woodbridge

13 N.J. 528 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 16, 1953

The purpose of the plaintiff in seeking this declaration is to establish the existence or non-existence of an important factor in relation to the value of these 20.70 acres, which have been taken by the State (for highway … This clause clearly continued the common law authority of the Legislature to retain and exercise the sovereign power of eminent domain.

New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Department of Agriculture

196 N.J. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 2008

Brunner, Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station, Effect of Calf Housing on Plasma Ascorbate and Endocrine and Immune Function, 74 J. … Dairy Sci. 1582 (1991) (concluding that confined calves experience stress that weakens immune systems).

State v. John T. Bragg

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 2025

Ct. 2013) (noting that whether an “apartment qualified as a temporary lodging, and hence a dwelling,” presented “a valid question for the jury” and not the trial court). … Nothing in the record before us establishes that defense counsel induced or encouraged the erroneous instruction.

Wilkinson v. Bauerle

41 N.J. Eq. 635 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1886

organized the new company, as charged in the bill, and he had received $200,000 of its capital stock, but had not transferred any of it to any stockholder or officer of the old company except one share to one person to qualify … The omission to re-enact the second section of the act to prevent frauds by incorporated companies, and the repeal of that act, clearly indicate a legislative intent to no longer prohibit the conduct which that section had