Case law

Town Tobacconist v. Kimmelman

94 N.J. 85 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 1983

The only witness to testify at trial was the owner of a New Jersey retail establishment called “Inner Dimensions.” … The use of marijuana and cocaine is clearly illegal in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 24:21-20.

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

Jastram Ex Rel. Jastram v. Kruse

197 N.J. 216 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 23, 2008

Kruse appealed, and, in an unpublished opinion, a two-judge panel of the Appellate Division reversed, based on its conclusion that the verdict was clearly and shockingly excessive. … The value of a benchmark necessarily must be qualified by measuring the “totality of the evidence” on a case-by-case basis. See Baxter, supra, 74 N.J. at 598 , 379 A.2d 225 .

Beckworth v. New Jersey State Parole Board

62 N.J. 348 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 1973

The pendency of this bill along with budgetary problems may delay full implementation of the Board's procedural plans but its memorandum assures that "establishment of the revised procedures remains a primary objective of … Of course, if the Parole Board decision on the merits is palpably arbitrary or clearly erroneous, it would not be immune from judicial correction.

Imo Scott P. Sigman, an Attorney at Law (074489)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 18, 2014

the respondent demonstrates, or the [DRB] finds on the face of the record on which the discipline 16  in another jurisdiction was predicated that it clearly … A plainly-wrong act is 21  not immunized because the victims are one’s partners. [Id. at 170.]

State v. Hartley

103 N.J. 252 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 3, 1986

At the other extreme, a blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly … While the Court views Frieberg’s statement as clearly coercive (see discussion infra at 267-271, Justice Stein views the same statement as a non-coercive request to reconsider a previous invocation of the right to silence

In re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly

210 N.J. 29 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 16, 2012

14,000 Tony Celeste (Independent) 1,767 On December 1, 2011, three weeks after the election, Lovett filed an Election Challenge Petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 to -14, alleging that Mosquera was not constitutionally qualified … As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, "our Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the States and the Federal Government." Gregory v.

Imo Scott P. Sigman, an Attorney at Law (074489)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 18, 2014

the respondent demonstrates, or the [DRB] finds on the face of the record on which the discipline 16  in another jurisdiction was predicated that it clearly … A plainly-wrong act is 21  not immunized because the victims are one’s partners. [Id. at 170.]

State in Interest of MTS

129 N.J. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1992

We then must consider what evidence is probative to establish the commission of a sexual assault. … The term "physical force," like its companion term "coercion," acts to qualify the nature and character of the "sexual penetration."

State v. Herby v. Desir (083584)(Union County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 9, 2021

To qualify as “relevant material,” the evidence must have a tendency in reason to prove or disprove a fact of consequence to the determination of the action. … First, he has clearly met the standard of reasonable specificity as to the report, which was described in the affidavit.

State v. Noel

102 N.J.L. 659 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1926

It is also like the ruling by a trial judge upon the question whether or not a witness offered as an expert is qualified to testify as an expert. … Where there is a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, evidence thereof is admissible, and such evidence does not fall

State v. Herby v. Desir (083584)(Union County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 9, 2021

To qualify as “relevant material,” the evidence must have a tendency in reason to prove or disprove a fact of consequence to the determination of the action. … First, he has clearly met the standard of reasonable specificity as to the report, which was described in the affidavit.

State v. Cook

47 N.J. 402 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1966

It was established that Cook had borrowed this knife several months earlier from Constantine Jolas, who operated the Dreamland Tavern. … Each of the two murders charged here was clearly part of a single occurrence, and evidence tending to prove one crime tends equally to prove the other.

State v. Whitlow

45 N.J. 3 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1965

On receipt of such papers the court may conduct a hearing in open court, with or without a jury, and take the *14 testimony of qualified psychiatrists as to the mental competency of the accused to stand trial. … Absent such reciprocal treatment, departure from ordinary rules governing hearsay testimony clearly would be unjust.

Wja v. Da

210 N.J. 229 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 2012

He clearly is not, nor is there any argument that he is associated in any way with the media. Next, we examine the content and context of Adams's speech. … Indeed, in determining whether a duty exists, our law clearly identifies deterrence as an important element. Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426, 448 , 625 A. 2d 1110 (1993).

In Re Camden County Grand Jury

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

NJ Chamb. Commerce v. NJ Elec. Law Enforce. Comm.

82 N.J. 57 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 8, 1980

However, where the necessary modification entails the addition of qualifying language, the court should be extremely reluctant to proceed, for there it usurps the legislative function. … The final factor is whether the statute can be made to conform to established standards. Thus in State v.

State v. Lee

96 N.J. 156 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1984

Michael O'Donovan was qualified as an expert on weapons and gave his opinion that the taped scissors were useless for their traditional purpose and in the taped condition became a "stiletto." … The first, a disregard of established case law, is one thing — an affront to the dignity of precedent, but endurable.

A. v. B.

158 N.J. 51 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1999

A lawyer's obligation to communicate to one client all information needed to make an informed decision qualifies the firm's duty to maintain the confidentiality of a co-client's information. … In view of the lack of material effect on Wife, Lawyer may assist Husband to establish and fund the inter vivos trust and refrain from disclosing Husband's information to Wife. [ Id. § 112 comment l, illustration 2.]

State v. DR

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.