Case law

Matter of Trust Created by Agreement Dated December 20, 1961

194 N.J. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 3, 2008

Martin Richards, the widower of Johnson’s daughter Mary Lea Johnson, argues that he satisfies the definition and thus qualifies as a potential beneficiary of the trust. … Clearly, those expressions by Hill, which were not based on particular conversations with Johnson or observations of Johnson’s conduct, were surrogate ways for Hill to convey his own ideas on that subject.

State v. Marc A. Olivero (073364)

221 N.J. 632 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 2015

Where the language of a statute clearly reveals its meaning, the sole function of the court is to enforce the statute in accordance with its terms. … The fenced-in area at issue in this case does not qualify as a “building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle or airplane.”

In Re the Accounting of Thompson

53 N.J. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 18, 1969

The court held that an adopted child of one of the cousins would not, in the absence of evidence of a contrary purpose, qualify as a descendant within the meaning of the instrument; it noted that the words “descendant” and … “issue” in their ordinary and primary meaning “connote lineal relationship by blood” and would be so construed unless it clearly appeared that they were used “in a more extended sense”; in a footnote it pointed out that

Carroll v. City of Newark

108 N.J.L. 323 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 1932

The statute is to be read, not under the necessity of finding fixed phraseology, but to ascertain its intent, because this intent, clearly found, will prevail. 3STo precise words are necessary in a statute to authorize the … L. 218; affirmed, post, p. 403, have established that when the state takes the property of its citizens for highway purposes, it takes an easement only.

State v. Harris

156 N.J. 122 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1998

The court clearly should have asked more open-ended questions. … In-depth voir dire about race was clearly imperative. First, the crime was interracial in nature.

State v. Dougherty

86 N.J.L. 525 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 12, 1915

To adopt the view urged upon us would lead to most pernicious consequences in every department of government, by giving to corrupt legislators and those entrusted with administering the law immunity from punishment for their … It is quite possible that in the minds of the jurors the question of identitjr may have been established.

Dunellen Board of Education v. Dunellen Education Ass'n

64 N.J. 17 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1973

In their relations with their employees the boards were clearly to be distinguished from private employers in private industry. … In the light of this strong qualifying statement and, absent further clarifying legislation, we are not prepared to construe the general provision in section 7 (N. J. 8.

Christopher Burgos v. State of New Jersey (075736)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 2015

The State also raised arguments based on sovereign immunity and the non-justiciability of political questions. … The language in Chapter 78 clearly establishes the intent of the Legislature and Governor to create an enforceable contractual right to funding of the pension system -- a point 12 not

Boland v. Dolan

140 N.J. 174 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1995

Because the issue is not usually whether expert testimony is needed, but rather what type of expert is needed or who qualifies as an expert, there is not much case law on this point. E.g., Landrigan v. … However, the trial judge’s failure to direct such viewing was not error “clearly capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2.

State v. Thornton

38 N.J. 380 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 22, 1962

It represents a rule of evidence which is firmly established by the overwhelming weight of judicial opinion. Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. L. 495 (E. & A. 1878); Mutual Life Ins. Co. c. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285 , 12 S. … The State’s purpose in presenting the “luring” theory was part of the effort to establish the defendant’s guilt of first degree murder, i. e., a premeditated, deliberate and willful killing.

State v. Edwin Andujar (084167) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 2021

Prospective jurors who are otherwise qualified to serve are typically excused in two ways. … Next, the trial judge decides whether “the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 98.

State v. Bey

112 N.J. 45 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 1988

Our reversal of defendant’s convictions in this case is based on well-established legal principles. … The initiation of a general discussion about the victim clearly satisfies this standard. E.g., Christopher v.

State v. Timmendequas

161 N.J. 515 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

The prosecutor sought to establish bias and interest. … The Kankas clearly qualify as victims in this case.

Howard v. Harwood's Restaurant Co.

25 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 7, 1957

All the stock of Harwood’s Restaurant Co., with the exception of two qualifying shares, is held by Ralph Howard, petitioner’s husband, who is president of the corporation. By virtue of her one qualifying share Mrs. … We find the legislative intent to be clearly otherwise. *89 R.

Falcey v. Civil Service Commission

16 N.J. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1954

S. 2A:168-5), it was established as early as 1919 in Mercer County and was then approved by the Commission, presumably under its broad classification powers. R. S. 11:4-1; R. S. 11:5-1; R. S. 11:7-1 et seq. Cf. R. … Marshall for many years; he is clearly in no present position to attack the 1941 designation. Cf. Covey v. City of Plainfield, 11 N. J. 375, 381 (1953); Clayton v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 130 N. J.

Jersey City Chapter of Property Owner's Protective Ass'n v. City Council of Jersey City

55 N.J. 86 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 15, 1969

The decisions rejecting various constitutional attacks on urban renewal legislation have clearly recognized that it goes far beyond the elimination of the perceptually offensive slums. See Wilson v. … J., at 477; see 2 Sutherland, supra § 5102, at 509-10: Standards established by the medium of legislation are usually intended to have considerable breadth with the result that a statute may cover many situations that do

State v. Johnson

61 N.J. 351 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1972

As of 1970 the Constitutions of 37 States by language similar to ours had established such a right to bail in non-capital cases. … Many cases are referred to in Pelt and Ball which clearly support the results reached.

Ab v. Sew

175 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 2003

To prevent endless re-litigation of settled cases, new developments in case law generally do not qualify as "`an extraordinary circumstance' as to justify relief from a final judgment[.]" Hartford Ins. Co. v. … Briefly stated, "[p]rospective application is appropriate when a decision establishes a new principle of law by overruling past precedent or by deciding an issue of first impression." Montells v.

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. City of Hoboken

10 N.J. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1952

Stewart, who qualified as an expert witness for the cities,-as to pier rentals along the Jersey City and Hoboken waterfronts. … That case did not concern the admissibility of evidence used circumstantially by a qualified expert witness to explain the basis of his opinion.

State v. Aaron

4 N.J.L. 231 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1818

original panel cannot be had to try the issue or cause, then the courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery are authorized and required to award a tales de circumstantibus of persons present at the said court, and qualified … If the intelligence to apprehend the consequences of acts; to reason upon duty; to distinguish between right and wrong; if the consciousness of guilt and innocence be clearly manifested, then this capacity is shewn: in the