Case law

State v. Weiner

41 N.J. 21 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1963

This rule is particularly applicable to a medical specialist who holds himself out as being especially qualified and better qualified than the ordinary general practitioner to treat of certain diseases because of his special … It is self-evident that the defendant himself could not be called by the State to establish these facts.

Lonegan v. State

174 N.J. 435 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 21, 2002

A EFCFA establishes the largest, most comprehensive school construction program in the nation. … Glaser, supra, 93 N.J. 447 , 461 A. 2d 1100 , we invalidated under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, U.S. Const., art.

Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc.

44 N.J. 70 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 19, 1965

On the issue of negligence there was clearly enough evidence to go to the jury. … That is not at all so, for the injured party would clearly have the burden of establishing that the house was defective when constructed and sold and that the defect proximately caused the injury.

American Trucking Ass'n v. State

180 N.J. 377 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 2004

Plaintiffs cite Scheiner as authority for this position: Now that it has been firmly established that interstate commerce as such has no immunity from state taxation, it is no longer appropriate to uphold a flat tax merely … As Schemer clearly indicates, however, the discriminatory effect of a fee can only be conducted based on averages.

State v. Alston

204 N.J. 614 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 2011

The United States Supreme Court set forth the framework for our analysis in Miranda, establishing the now-familiar warnings designed to safeguard the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the privilege against self-incrimination … The United States Supreme Court has drawn a strict line to identify what will qualify as a request for counsel.

Pinto v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

183 N.J. 405 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 2005

step-down provision capped the employer’s UIM exposure at the limit provided by the employee’s own automobile insurance policy or that of a resident family member, except that the step-down would be inapplicable if the employee qualified … We clearly stated that insurers are free to modify insurance policy language to limit the UIM coverage of passengers and others who are named insureds under other insurance policies. Id. at 418 , 710 A.2d 412 .

State v. Petillo

61 N.J. 165 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1972

The evidence seized fulfilled the reasonable expectations of the warrant and clearly justified the jury finding of guilt. … Search of the dining room revealed water soluble paper in a china closet, which one officer, who qualified at the trial as a gambl *171 ing investigation expert, said was commonly used by bookmakers in order to facilitate

Lorenc v. Chemirad Corp.

37 N.J. 56 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 1962

In defense, Chemirad established the manner of packaging the ethylene imine, as has already been described above, and Dr. … In its origin and early use the phrase did take on some rather clearly defined contours.

State v. Bailey

231 N.J. 474 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 2018

United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92 , 117 S.Ct. 644 , 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), which held that when a defendant is charged with possession of a weapon by a felon, and he or she offers to stipulate the fact of the qualifying … A bifurcated proceeding is necessary “since proof that defendant was a convicted felon (required in the trial of the [certain persons] charge) clearly tends to prejudice the jury in considering the [additional charge].”

State, in Interest of Rr

79 N.J. 97 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1979

W. sufficiently established the chronology of events. *107 Finding that no evidence relating to actual penetration had been adduced, the judge dismissed the sodomy charge. … Moreover, a review of the record as a whole shows clearly that this interpretation was harmless.

State v. Purnell

126 N.J. 518 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 15, 1992

That type of factor need not be established in the guilt phase of a trial. … As in Perry and Oglesby , the record here did not clearly indicate the need for a passion/provocation charge.

In Re Sears

71 N.J. 175 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 30, 1976

We should impose such a restriction only after careful deliberation and only in circumstances which clearly warrant it. … If we are to maintain public confidence in that integrity we must be resolute in our insistence that attorneys maintain the standards we have established.

State v. Conyers

58 N.J. 123 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 26, 1971

But, if we accept literally the juror’s final statement that he could not definitely say whether he was unable to vote for a death sentence, cause was nonetheless established. … A venireman who has a bias or preconception is not qualified if he is *144 unable affirmatively to assure the court of his ability to lay that bias or preconception aside and to try the issue fairly. People v.

Abbott v. Burke

119 N.J. 287 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1990

the State was clearly right. … Perhaps more should qualify, perhaps fewer.

In Re the Probate of the Alleged Will of Ranney

124 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 1991

. *10 Other states have recognized that a will failing to satisfy the attestation requirements should not be denied probate when the witnesses have substantially complied with those requirements and the testator clearly intended … Probate in solemn form, which is an added precaution to assure proof of valid execution, may be initiated on an order to show cause, R. 4:84-1(b), and need not unduly delay probate of a qualified will. *15 -IV- The record

French v. New Jersey School Board Ass'n Insurance Group

149 N.J. 478 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1997

In order to qualify for UIM benefits under any UIM policy “insuring” the injured person, that person must demonstrate that the limits of the policy “held” by him or her are greater than the aggregate liability limits insuring … However, we believe that the Legislature clearly would have intended that the policy “held” by a claimant under N.J.S.A 17:28-l.le would include a policy provided for the claimant by an employer even if coverage under the

Den v. Jones

8 N.J.L. 419 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1826

By the general nature of a proviso in a statute; its general object is to qualify, limit or restrain the general enactment which has preceded it. 2dly, By the style and purport of the proviso in question which is manifestly … Yet, clearly such was not the intention of the legislature.

Ford Motor Co. v. Township of Edison

127 N.J. 290 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 1992

Both Ford and Edison have agreed that the property does not qualify as “special-purpose property,” regardless of their disagreement concerning the limits on the market for this property. *300 B. … The Tax Court said at the time of Edison’s motion: “I think that it is clear that the appraisal and the testimony of the expert witness clearly overcomes the presumptions of correctness that attach[ ] to the County Board

State v. Nelson

173 N.J. 417 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 2002

As in Rose, supra, the experts were both well- *463 qualified and carefully explained the bases for their opinions. … Indeed, because a prosecutor may argue that a death sentence is appropriate, he clearly may insinuate as much.

Karcher v. Kean

97 N.J. 483 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 6, 1984

Such an authorization clearly constitutes an appropriation of revenues. E.g., Borough of Glassboro v. Byrne, supra, 141 N.J. Super, at 23; see Jessen Assocs., Inc. v. … At any rate, they most certainly qualify as state revenues.