Case law

Proprietors of Bridges v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.

13 N.J. Eq. 503 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1860

Clearly only the pathway for man and animals. Put pathways on them, and.they are instantly pontes; take them off, and they are instantly hut aqueeduetee. … He need not have qualified the sentence with a “ seem.” There was nothing ever more absolutely certain than that a structure upon piers and abutments, with a pathway of solid plank resting on them, is a bridge.

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.

State v. Benny

20 N.J. 238 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 19, 1955

We have gone into detail in relating the factual circumstances of these three cases, because we believe it important that the law of the subject be clearly understood by all in its precise applications. … “The ballot in the hands of the qualified voter is the means by which he exercises his inalienable right to give consent as to how and by whom he chooses to be governed.

In Re Application of 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. … 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.

Lombardi v. Masso

207 N.J. 517 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 26, 2011

There were conflicting certifications to begin with, and our Courts have clearly said that when you have conflicting certification[s] that almost mandates that there be some sort of hearing to resolve those certifications … The only exception is the case of an emergency 8 with respect to which late filing clearly does not qualify.

In the Matter of the New Jersey State Fireman’s Association Obligation to Provide Relief Applications Under the Open Public Records Act (077097) (Union County and Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 2017

Statutorily created in 1885, L. 1885, c. 122, § 24, the Association is vested with the mission to provide welfare and death benefits to qualified active and retired volunteer, part-time, and paid firefighters and their … Moreover, OPRA clearly and unambiguously confers the right to initiate a suit after a public agency’s denial of access only upon the requestor. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6.

E. E. B. v. D. A.

89 N.J. 595 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 21, 1982

New Jersey, which has been the home of the child and parents for nearly three years, clearly has jurisdiction of the subject matter. … Under PKPA, jurisdiction may be based on significant contacts only if no state qualifies as the home state.

State v. Tate

102 N.J. 64 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 24, 1986

It reasons, however, that the only uses of a drug that could qualify as a “medical necessity” under the Code’s justification defense would be those undertaken exclusively pursuant to the TRA. I disagree. … Society clearly has a compelling interest grounded upon universal, humanitarian impulses in not having an individual suffer needlessly.

Cuna v. Board of Fire Commissioners

42 N.J. 292 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 1964

In New Jersey, for example, a fire company was established in Princeton on February 11, 1788. … Authorization was sufficiently established prima facie, and nothing was presented to raise a factual question in that regard.

Velmohos v. Maren Engineering Corp.

83 N.J. 282 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1980

Invalidation of the statute would render defendant corporations immune from suit in this State, since without the benefit of the tolling statute, the relevant limitations period has expired. … We do the same here by refusing to deny plaintiffs the benefit of a tolling statute to which they are clearly entitled.

Petition of Felmeister & Isaacs

104 N.J. 515 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 10, 1986

This is not to say that the bar and bench should be immune from criticism, or even ridicule, in attorney advertising. … Although petitioner’s claims on occasion mention our state Constitution, its attack is clearly based on the federal Constitution.

In Re Parole Application of Hawley

98 N.J. 108 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1984

We find no reason to exempt the Parole Board from the well-established principle that a court may review the actions of an administrative agency to determine if its power is being exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. … As pointed out by the Appellate Division, fairness to an inmate whose liberty interest has been curtailed by the denial of parole and the need for that inmate to attempt to obtain his liberty by qualifying for parole — matters

State v. Crowell

9 N.J.L. 391 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1828

residing in one of our counties in the full enjoyment of all the rights of citizenship, may by removal into another county deprive himself of some of the most important, for instance, the right of suffrage, and he must even qualify … And it hence clearly results that there were not at that time any members of the congregation who were not pewholders.

State v. Smith

27 N.J. 433 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1958

Eundamentally, photographs are deemed to be pictorial communications of a qualified witness. Enlargements as well as colored photographs, within proper limitations, are admissible in the discretion of the trial court. … Clearly, defendant’s conviction was warranted.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of W.W., SVP-86-00 (083890) (Essex County & Statewide)

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.

GE Solid State, Inc v. Director, Division of Taxation

132 N.J. 298 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 1993

Seldom has a statute's legislative history so clearly revealed the Legislature's intent. … The Court observes that "that long-continued error does not make valid what is clearly invalid." Majority at 313, 625 A. 2d at 475-76 .

State v. Walker

33 N.J. 580 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1960

R. 3:7-10 (a) and finding there was grave doubt as to defendant’s having clearly understood the meaning of his plea, reversed so that he could enter a plea of not guilty and stand trial. … He is entitled only to a panel and a jury which are selected without discrimination from jury lists compiled without regard to the race of those qualified to serve as jurors.

Fb v. Alg

176 N.J. 201 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2003

However, certain subsections clearly are not applicable. Rule 4:50-2 requires an application for relief under subsections (a), (b), and (c) to be brought within one year of the judgment. … To qualify for federal funds, a State must certify that it will operate a child support enforcement program that conforms with the requirements of the Act, including, among other things, a comprehensive system to establish

Lonegan v. State

176 N.J. 2 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 9, 2003

constitutes a broad umbrella ... covering] any legislative enactment that binds the state, either by design or by indirect result, to the payment of incurred debt out of general revenues,” post at 23, 819 A.2d at 408-09, clearly … In other states, the courts have permitted legislatures to establish special hinds with “revenuefs] from existing facilities” that are “functionally related” to the new venture.

Roa v. Roa

200 N.J. 555 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 14, 2010

In other words, when Fernando was fired he clearly knew, or should have known, that he had been the subject of retaliation by defendants, and should have filed his complaint within two years thereof. … An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.