Case law

In Re Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso

73 N.J. 575 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1977

Yet clearly any such interaction would have violated Tuso's privilege. … But while federal precedents indicate that a court has no discretion to determine whether a grant of immunity would be in the public interest, they also establish that courts have ample authority to check prosecutorial abuses

State v. Bieniek

200 N.J. 601 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 21, 2010

The memorandum set forth four mitigating circumstances: (2) [Defendant] did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm; (4) [Defendant] suiters from severe alcoholism, which fails to establish a … Because the sentencing court adhered to the sentencing principles set forth in the Code and defined in our case law, its discretion should be immune from second-guessing.

Weiss v. Goldfarb

154 N.J. 468 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1998

More recently, even in the trial of verbal threshold cases before a jury to determine whether a plaintiffs alleged injuries qualify under that statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a, our courts have held that it is improper to mention … As part of its 1995 tort reform, L.1995, c. 142, § 9, the Legislature directed that “[t]he jury shall not be informed of the cap on punitive damages established by section 6 of this act.” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.16.

Andrew v. Deshler

45 N.J.L. 167 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1883

There has been considerable discussion as to how far the publication of a notice of this character is a privileged communication, so as to repel the presumption of malice and afford a qualified defence to the action. … Wildes, 5 E. & B. 328, Lord Campbell says: “ We are of opinion that wherever there is evidence of malice, either extrinsic or intrinsic, in answer to the immunity claimed by reason of the occasion, a question arises which

Mahoney v. Carus Chemical Co., Inc.

102 N.J. 564 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1986

II In establishing the fireman’s rule in New Jersey, this Court expressly considered the relationship between the conduct responsible for causing a fire and the fireman’s right to recover for injuries sustained in fighting … The dissenting opinion does not generally endorse an exemption from the fireman's rule for willful and wanton misconduct but asserts that such an exemption clearly applies when the misconduct occurs after the officer has

State v. Marshall

123 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1991

The basic rule was established in Brady v. … However, during the State’s cross-examination of defendant, Marshall was pressed to admit that his wife had asked, “What’s this for,” in the presence of the agent, the State’s purpose clearly being to establish a lack of

Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories

125 N.J. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1991

Swanzey submitted additional information to the FDA with a letter stating: “This is our total experience to date and is certainly still insufficient to establish clearly that demethylchlortetracycline may cause tooth staining … such requirement is identical to the warning established by the Act); MacDonald v.

McFadden v. Whitney

51 N.J.L. 391 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1889

This distinction is clearly recognized in this court in the case of Bitz v. Meyer, 11 Vroom 252. … The policy of the law has always been to guarantee immunity to suitors who, in good faith, adopt and pursue the due forms of the law, although they may ultimately fail to establish their claims.

State v. City of Elizabeth

56 N.J.L. 71 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1893

This statute is one -which, so far as this ease is concerned,, clearly regulates the internal affairs of the city of Elizabeth. … The conditions imposed are not even similar. ' One class of race-courses may be established without regard to conditions at all; another class can only be established by submitting to the imposition of a condition which may

Mixon v. Kalman

131 N.J.L. 457 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 27, 1944

Those wires are immune to beingsi ruck by lightning, practically immune if they are located within about two times the height of the elevated point. … We conclude that the petitioner has failed to establish by the proofs that the death by lightning of Mixon arose out of the employment and find as a fact that said death did not so arise.

State v. Collingswood Sewerage Co.

85 N.J.L. 567 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1914

Justice Parker, in speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, very clearly enunciates the rule, as follows: “As the law now stands, whether a case comes before us on strict bill of exceptions or under the statute, or both … building and location of its plant and has in every respect complied with all the requirements of the state sewage commission and the state board of health in the construction and operation of its plant, that therefore it is immune

DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale

183 N.J. 149 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 2005

immunity. … Thus, if the police officer's actions were objectively reasonable, the officer will be entitled to qualified immunity.

Christy v. City of Newark

102 N.J. 598 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1986

It further took the position that plaintiff’s claim was “clearly barred by the provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,” N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to :12-3. … Only a “qualified person” may claim indemnification from the Fund, N.J.S.A. 39:6-69; and N.J.S.A. 39:6-62 excludes from the definition of a “qualified person” anyone who is an insured under an insurance policy providing UM

Bernice Pisack v. B & C Towing, Inc. Eptisam Pellegrino v. Nick's Towing Service, Inc. Christopher Walker v. All Points Automotive & Towing, Inc. (081492) (Bergen & Middlesex Counties & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 16, 2020

Now, the 2018 amendatory language qualifies that provision, stating that a towing company may charge “fees for non-consensual towing or related storage services in accordance with a duly-authorized fee schedule established … In violating the regulation, defendants violated a “clearly established legal right” under the TCCWNA.

Town of Bloomfield v. New Jersey Highway Authority

18 N.J. 237 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 25, 1955

of county park systems and governance under autonomous bodies in terms that clearly exclude the divisive control claimed by the municipality here. … Such use is clearly a use for the purpose of business, and the use for `business of any kind' is prohibited by the ordinance.

Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group Inc.

201 N.J. 500 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 11, 2010

Our courts have alternatively characterized the fair-report privilege as absolute, qualified, and a hybrid of the two. … Although the truth or falsity of the information reported on may later be established, it is not the focus of the fair-report privilege.

Boyle v. Breme

93 N.J. 569 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 1983

That duty may oblige them to decline to perform acts required by their employers. [ Id. at 71 ] Justice Pollock's opinion clearly indicated that the independence of the medical profession and the duties that its members owe … *574 the public could not be overriden by an employer directive that contravened public policy and conflicted with established medical practice.

State v. Mellick

25 N.J.L. 563 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1856

enacts, that the town shall be entitled "to its just proportion of the- ’ school fund of the state, to be applied by the common coun cij in.the.manner prescribed by law. . , v At the time this charter was granted, thé act to establish … Minton, Ib. 529, that the provisions of a special charter will not be repealed or modified'by a general act, unless it clearly appears that *565 such was.the intention of the legislature.

Passaic National Bank, C., Co. v. Eelman

116 N.J.L. 279 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1936

Moreover, assuming the inapplicability of this act, these accruing pension installments are clearly “income” within the intendment of the supplementary execution statute. … While it would seem that the immunity of official salary to garnishment still obtains where the amount is less than $18 per week (Oetjen v.

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. Hardy

59 N.J.L. 35 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1896

To establish the immunity of the master, two things must appear—-first, that the person injured .and the person doing the injury were his seiwants, and second, that they were both at the time engaged in labor for him ■tending … Justice Eeed clearly indicates that, in his view, the evidence established the co-service of Ewan and the engineer, and in that opinion I concur.