Case law

State v. Tune

13 N.J. 203 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1953

He is immune from question or comment on his silence; he cannot be convicted when *213 there is the least fair, doubt in the minds of any one of the twelve. … S. 495 (1947), affirming 153 F. 2d 212, establishing the doctrine which has been substantially incorporated into our rules, 3:16-2, supra.

Kinsella v. Kinsella

150 N.J. 276 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 1997

Giovine, 284 N.J.Super. 3 , 663 A.2d 109 (App.Div.1995), she was required to make a preliminary showing of seriousness of injury in order to qualify for a jury trial. … Plaintiff’s alleged admissions to his psychologist would satisfy the primary factual element of defendant’s case, and they are clearly relevant and material to legal issues before the court.

State v. Pitts

116 N.J. 580 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 21, 1989

to the State’s effort to establish defendant’s motive for the murders on March 22. … Testimony by qualified experts is an acknowledged method for proving general acceptance of a scientific procedure. Id. at 379-82 .

State v. Murphy

110 N.J. 20 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 28, 1988

Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. 123 , we discussed in general terms the process by which judges examine a panel of grand jurors to obtain qualified grand jurors. … “Unless the prosecutor’s misconduct * * * is extreme and clearly infringes upon the [grand] jury’s decision-making function, it should not be utilized * * * to dismiss[ ] an indictment.” State v.

Besler v. Board of Education

201 N.J. 544 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 2010

Clearly, Dr. Bynum and other Board members were the final policymakers for the Board of Education. … He does not have to establish that on multiple other occasions his free-speech rights were infringed by the Board before he can seek redress.

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.

State v. O'HAGEN

189 N.J. 140 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 2007

However, the State urges that courts should apply the totality of circumstances test and that valid law enforcement purposes clearly outweigh the minimal intrusion of a cotton swab used to retrieve a DNA sample. … In 1990, the FBI established CODIS to store DNA information obtained from federal, state, and local agencies.

Gellert v. Livingston

5 N.J. 65 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1950

The burden of proving undue influence is upon the person asserting it and it must be clearly established. In re Raynolds, supra, p. 147; In re Heim, 136 N. J. … Livingston for 22 years and that except for the last four or five years of his life, the decedent was qualified *77 to handle his own affairs.

Yanow v. Seven Oaks Park, Inc.

11 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 26, 1953

We conclude that the intent expressed was to permit such' schools as are required for the good of the residential area, namely those established for the general education of the children of the neighborhood in the subjects … S. 1910, pp. 4775-4776, sec. 153), clearly classifying elementary (grammar), intermediate (high) and manual training schools as “public schools.”

Gaines v. Bellino

173 N.J. 301 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2002

I agree with the language used by [defense counsel], that the employer is immunized in these circumstances. … We perceive this motion record as clearly not supporting the summary disposition granted to defendant.

State v. Randy K. Manning (080834) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 13, 2020

(“New Jersey has had an established policy of providing the utmost protection for telephonic communications.”). … In contrast, clearly mistaken factfindings are not entitled to deference. Id. at 244.

State v. Canola

73 N.J. 206 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 1977

The wording clearly contemplated the felon as the perpetrator of the act of killing. The superseding statute of 1839 and its successors down to N. J. S. … Although, as will be seen, this distinction survives in a few jurisdictions, it has been criticized in principle, since, inter alia,, the criminal immunity or liability of the third person killer is irrelevant to the criminal

United New Jersey Railroad v. National Docks & New Jersey Junction Connecting Railway Co.

52 N.J.L. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1889

On the other hand, it is claimed that the yard may be established and operated at the changed grade with safety. … Yet it is clearly shown that such roads are not to take the place of existing railroads or usurp their functions.

Ab v. Yz

184 N.J. 599 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 9, 2005

Had H.T. qualified under the Child Sexual Abuse Act to be questioned on closed circuit television, that would have warranted an alteration of the ordinary rules governing the case. However, he plainly did not. … 3110 , 92 L.Ed. 2d 460, 475 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring) (stating Supreme Court did not question "the view that constitutional error is always sufficiently serious to create a presumption in favor of reversal" when it established

Bubis v. Kassin

184 N.J. 612 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 2005

This establishes a “towering presence” along Ocean Place akin to that created by the trees in the above cases. … If not, then preemption is clearly inapplicable.” Overlook Terrace Mgmt. Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. of W. New York, 71 N.J. 451, 461 , 366 A.2d 321 (1976).

Instructional Systems, Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp.

130 N.J. 324 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 19, 1992

The statute provides further that “an office, a warehouse, a place of storage, a residence or a vehicle” do not qualify as a “place of business.” Ibid. … That ISI is not the same type of establishment as a prototypical franchise is undisputed.

Brennan v. United Hatters of North America, Local No. 17

73 N.J.L. 729 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 19, 1906

The grounds of this appeal and the circumstances under which it was taken do not appear, nor does it clearly appear that any formal appeal *737 was taken. … His rights, like all personal rights that are to be enjoyed in a state of society, were qualified to a material extent when they came into' conflict with the rights of others.

Matter of Fleischer

102 N.J. 440 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 1986

Finally, we must ourselves be clearly convinced that there was, in fact, an intentional invasion or knowing misappropriation of clients’ funds. In re Sears, 71 N.J. 175, 197 (1976). … We should impose such a restriction only after careful deliberation and only in circumstances which clearly warrant it. [Id. at 197-98.]

Rowatti v. Gonchar

101 N.J. 46 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1985

In viewing that totality of facts and the design of the addition itself, the Board of Adjustment determined that the structure "point[ed] clearly to the establishment of a fully separate and complete apartment * * * [so] … Clearly, the use of the word "or" creates a different test from that applied in Stafford .

Hisenaj v. Kuehner

194 N.J. 6 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 2008

Alexander’s expert testimony was governed by N.J.R.E. 702: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … That position is clearly inconsistent with existing law, however. See Clark v.