Case law

STATE FARM MUT. AUTO. v. Public Advocate

118 N.J. 336 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 1990

This record clearly indicates that the choice of procedures understandably troubled the trial courts. As noted, Rule 4:67-6(c)(3) does not permit a trial court to inquire into the validity of an agency order. … Granted that the Public Advocate has no authority to suspend a deregulated rate, the filing of rates in the deregulated insurance area does not immunize the rates from all governmental review.

State v. Bennie Anderson (084365) (Mercer County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 2021

Defendant’s federal conviction is an analogue to the state offenses listed and, as per the statute’s wording, qualifies as the basis for the State’s application. (pp. 22-23) 5. … The Legislature has established that the pre-condition of honorable service to the statutory right is not met when a conviction for an enumerated offense occurs.

Walker Rogge, Inc. v. Chelsea Title & Guaranty Co.

116 N.J. 517 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 9, 1989

That technicality counsels a prudent purchaser to consult qualified experts such as lawyers and surveyors. … Another difference is that in an action under the title policy, the insured may establish a cause of action for breach of contract without establishing that the title company breached the standard of care appropriate for

State v. A.O.

198 N.J. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 2009

In addition, the examiner must be qualified and the test administered in accordance with established techniques. Ibid. … In other words, another expert, no matter how well qualified, cannot offer a contrary opinion about the test results.

Windmere, Inc. v. International Insurance

105 N.J. 373 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 1987

(In the criminal context, conditions of admissibility must be “clearly established.” State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 171 (1964)). … Each of these criteria for establishing the reliability of a scientific device has been seriously challenged or impugned with respect to voiceprints. (1) Testimony of Knowledgeable Experts Did Not Establish Its General Acceptance

In Re the Commitment of N.N.

146 N.J. 112 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 5, 1996

The doctor believed that N.N. suffered from a “substantial disturbance of mood perception,” which would have qualified her for commitment under the adult standard of mental illness. Dr. … The evidence was insufficient to establish that N.N. suffered a childhood mental illness and it was not established that she required intensive, institutional psychiatric therapy or that she suffered a condition of dangerousness

State v. Lewis

185 N.J. 363 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 8, 2005

In furtherance of that purpose, the Legislature mandated severe punishment for those who possess or distribute drugs in the safety zones established by those statutes. … The statute describes clearly and precisely ("500 feet") the area within which enhanced penalties will pertain.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of W.W., SVP-86-00

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 11, 2021

See N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5 (“Whenever there is reason to doubt the defendant’s fitness to proceed, the court may on motion by the prosecutor, the defendant or on its own motion, appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist or … The SVPA’s legislative history clearly establishes that the Legislature deliberately modeled the SVPA’s commitment procedures after the general civil commitment statute that predated it.

Cutler v. Dorn

196 N.J. 419 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 2008

Knoedler were on duty at the stationhouse preparing to watch a training video about diplomatic immunity. Shreve asked Knoedler and Cutler if they knew why they were being required to watch the video. … The uttering of those repeated comments clearly constituted a form of harassment for the person whose ancestry and religion was being demeaned and insulted.

State v. Thomas

188 N.J. 137 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 2006

The language of 2C:43-6(f) clearly indicates that the Legislature meant enhancement to be mandatory: a person “shall upon application of the prosecuting attorney be sentenced by the *150 court to an extended term.” … Procedurally, when a prosecuting attorney makes application under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f), the sole determination for the sentencing court is to confirm that the defendant has the predicate prior convictions to qualify for enhanced

Lowenstein v. Newark Board of Education

33 N.J. 277 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 18, 1960

fully and frankly to answer any questions asked by the employer, apparently whether or not relevant or material to the subject of inquiry, evidences secretiveness and lack of candor, thereby stamping the individual as not qualified … Of course, it is so self-evident that it seems unnecessary to add, that once a basis of relevancy is established as we have outlined, it is absolutely obligatory on the employee to answer.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. I.S.

202 N.J. 145 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 2010

We clearly have held that “when the permanency provided by adoption is available, kinship legal guardianship cannot be used as a defense to termination of parental rights under N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(3).” … We are plainly not qualified to substitute our own judgment about the harm that will befall a child in such a circumstance for the uncontested opinions of a qualified expert who testifies at trial.

Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

186 N.J. 188 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 2006

These terms are attractive to many consumers who cannot afford a *194 cash purchase, may be unable to qualify for credit, and are unwilling or unable to wait until they can save for a purchase. … We therefore reject Rent-A-Center’s arguments to the contrary and hold that the language used and the circumstances surrounding the enactment of S. 3101 and S. 3005 clearly establish the relationship between the statutes.

H. Rosenblum, Inc. v. Adler

93 N.J. 324 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 1983

It has been said that accountability has clearly been the social and organizational backbone of accounting for centuries. … These were clearly foreseeable potential uses of the audited financials at the time of their preparation.

State v. Kelsey

44 N.J.L. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1882

And such clearly is the design in this instance. … The legal rule is clearly expressed by Chief Justice Shaw, in Warren et al. v.

State v. Damon Williams (083532) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 19, 2021

So, that is clearly -- The Court: Is that what was on there? Prosecutor: No. .... … To establish theft, on the other hand, the State need establish only that defendant exercised unlawful control over the movable property of another -- the bank’s money. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3.

Schick v. Ferolito

167 N.J. 7 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 2001

Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the heightened standard of care established by Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494 , 643 A.2d 600 (1994), should apply to participants in the game of golf. … The Court determined that those policies outweighed concerns that raising the standard of care implicitly immunized conduct that otherwise would be considered tortious and actionable. Id. at 502 , 643 A.2d 600 .

State v. Bruns

172 N.J. 40 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 9, 2002

Generally speaking, that requires a court to inquire whether defendant has interests that are substantial enough to qualify him as a person aggrieved by the allegedly unlawful search and seizure. Jones v. … Mollica established a broad standing rule, those decisions did not address the standing requirement in cases in which a defendant clearly had abandoned or relinquished his possessory interest in the property being seized

In Re Pub. Ser. Elec. & Gas Co.

167 N.J. 377 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 18, 2001

EDECA contemplates that a utility unable to fund the required rate reductions by reducing distribution or transmission charges must fund the rate reductions by reducing the market transition charge, subject to the statute's qualifying … The orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be "clearly disclosed and adequately sustained."

Monmouth Medical Center v. State

80 N.J. 299 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1979

Cmwlth. 1975). 8 *311 We do not dispute the propriety of requiring the hospital to bear the burden of clearly demonstrating that it took all reasonable steps possible to place its patient. … Optional coverage may be extended to the “medically needy” — those who do not qualify for public assistance yet lack *304 sufficient “income and resources to meet the costs of necessary medical and remedial care and services