Case law

State v. DiPaglia

64 N.J. 288 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 5, 1974

The trial court in charging the jury on the defense of insanity said the following: Under our law all persons are presumed to be sane and, therefore, responsible for their conduct, unless and until the contrary is established … Coupled with the fabrication and obstruction charges this clearly amounts to an attack upon opposing counsel.

State v. Marshall

130 N.J. 109 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1992

Those cases were further classified as clearly death eligible, questionable, and clearly not death eligible. … During the proceedings involved in that appeal we learned that approximately ten to fifteen additional cases per year might have to be added to the pool of death-noticed cases to establish a pool of clearly death-eligible

State v. Neulander

173 N.J. 193 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 18, 2002

Clearly that is not the ease. … II A The restriction on the publication of juror identifications implicates more clearly established First Amendment principles than does the prohibition of juror interviews.

State v. Montague

55 N.J. 387 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1970

B. 3 :5 — 9 (now B. 3 :11-1) which provides that if a defendant intends to rely on an alibi he must furnish a bill of particulars of that claim and the names and addresses of witnesses “upon whom he intends to rely to establish … Our own civil practice rule, R. 4:10-2, affords a comparable qualified privilege with respect to writings obtained or prepared by the attorney “in anticipation of litigation and in preparation for trial.”

Wurtzel v. Falcey

69 N.J. 401 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 1, 1976

Although this test *411 clearly exhibits greater bite than, the toothless and ineffective test employed by the majority here, 5 nowhere in his opinion did Chief Justice Burger mention the strict “compelling state interest … In fact, in confronting equal protection challenges to minimum age requirements, these courts have consistently recognized that such restrictions on the right to run for public office are not immune from the impact of the

Mogolefsky v. Schoem

50 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 22, 1967

establishing that they are licensed brokers or salesmen. … The second suit is now clearly moot. And it should go without saying that no convictions of them for violation of the ordinance (now pending on appeal in the Passaic County Court) can stand.

Banco Popular North America v. Gandi

184 N.J. 161 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 2005

The Appellate Division in Karo held that the plaintiffs allegations, if true, “clearly, indeed patently, demonstrate, actionable fraud.” Id. at 440 , 752 A.2d 341 . … We are aware of the Bank’s status as a sophisticated party; however, that status does not immunize Freedman’s alleged intentional or negligent facilitation of Gandhi’s fraudulent scheme.

Depascale v. State

211 N.J. 40 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2012

The Clause places judges’ remuneration, once established, beyond the power of the other two branches *50 to diminish. … The detailed records of the proceedings of the drafting of the 1947 Constitution are replete with references about judicial *51 independence and the need to attract qualified lawyers to serve as judges.

State v. D.R.

109 N.J. 348 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 9, 1988

To establish the basis for Dr. Krupnick’s opinion, the following testimony was elicited without objection by defendant’s counsel: Q. … Applying the newly-established hearsay exception, the court determined that the victim’s out-of-court statements were admissible.

Magnifico v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance

153 N.J. 406 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 12, 1998

Rutgers argued that, based on Aubrey , Magnifico was entitled to UIM recovery only up to the $100,000 UIM limit established by her personal policy. … Such qualifying provisions should be construed in a common sense and logical fashion in accordance with the language used.

Den v. Urison

3 N.J.L. 212 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1807

the Legislature, as evidenced’by the words of the preamble, but that the enacting clause has gone beyond the particular intent expressed in the preamble; it, therefore, comes to this: Will the generality of the language, clearly … Atk. 175, 182, attempted to qualify the general rule in the construction of a particular act, in a case where injustice to an individual, and ruin to the mercantile business, would follow from a rigid adherence to the letter

In re the Presentment Made to Superior Court

10 N.J. 23 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1952

Clearly the amendment was not designed to revive the outmoded criminal presentment as a substitute for an indictment. … recommended that the hospital be taken from the management of the board of freeholders, who had failed in their duties, and placed in the hands of a competent board of management or else under state control; that a more qualified

State v. Cooper

10 N.J. 532 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 24, 1952

The prosecutor was surprised at the testimony given on the trial of the case, and clearly had the right to probe the witness as he did.” … It is designed to show the residents of the county in which the crime was committed are so aroused they would not be qualified to sit as a jury to try an indictment of one accused of the offense.

In Re Protest of Contract for Retail Pharmacy Design, Construction, Start-Up and Operation, Request for Proposal No. UH-P20-006/ in Re Sumukha LLC Challenge of Post-Award Changes to RFP UH-P20-006

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 23, 2024

In Infinity Broadcasting, we considered the Meadowlands Commission a state administrative agency given the enabling statute’s declarations that the Commission is “a political subdivision of the State established as an … Clearly, a public entity that does not qualify as a “state administrative agency” under Rule 2:2-3(a)(2) does not have the authority to declare itself to be such an agency.

In re the Saddle River

71 N.J. 14 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 1976

The fact that a contract, instead of being negotiated, is arrived at after competitive bidding is clearly of no significance in this context. The Board has interpreted N. J. S. … As yet, however, *32 it has not exercised this authority; hence all qualified utilities in this category are eligible to provide service to any municipality.

State v. Long

173 N.J. 138 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 2002

Courts must use a fact-specific analysis to determine whether a statement made after a specific period of time will qualify as an excited utterance. State v. … Clearly, those facts demonstrate that Tracey was under the stress of excitement caused by defendant’s statements to her that Mabel, her friend’s mother, had fallen and died.

State v. JG

201 N.J. 369 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 2010

The Pastor also believed that he was not qualified to offer the psychological help he thought J.G. needed. Instead, the Pastor offered to find an organization that could counsel J.G. … A trial court's findings may only be disturbed "if they are so clearly mistaken `that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'" Id. at 244 , 927 A. 2d 1250 (quoting State v.

State v. Irving

114 N.J. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 1989

No one should need to establish innocence in an American courtroom. We allow discovery from the defense in criminal cases only to prevent defendants from making a joke of the system. … Those statements are clearly part of the real events to be tested at trial. It is, however, another thing to compel a defendant to create a paper trail in order to confront him. This is no measure of criminality.

Bedford v. Riello

195 N.J. 210 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 2008

We do not view such testimony as sufficient to establish the "relatedness" required under the regulation. … Those words clearly restrict the scope of chiropractic care in New Jersey to manipulations of spinal joints.

State v. Wint

236 N.J. 174 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 12, 2018

The Court ultimately determined that Shatzer's return to the general prison population qualified as a break in custody. Id. at 117 , 130 S.Ct. 1213 . … We now hold that pre-indictment, pretrial detainment does not qualify as a break in custody under Shatzer .