Case law

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.

Levin v. Tp. Committee of Tp. of Bridgewater

57 N.J. 506 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 22, 1971

The view was expressed that the diversity of ownership and the condition of titles qualified it as blighted under N. J. 8. … Exhibit PB-2, a Property Ownership Map, clearly illustrates the restrictions to development caused by diversity of ownership. 6.

City of Camden v. Byrne

82 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 5, 1980

Cantwell, supra, it was recognized that the judiciary is unable to compel a requested appropriation even where a statutorily-defined substantive right to the monies is established, observing that although the particular statute … fiscal year, unless the same shall be authorized by a law for some single object or work distinctly specified therein[,] . . . submitted to the people at a general election and *152 approved by a majority of the legally qualified

Allen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

44 N.J. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 29, 1965

That clearly was not Allen’s understanding and indeed the Metropolitan itself does not now urge such understanding. … The company instituted an action to cancel its receipt, asserting that DeChiaro could not qualify for the standard policy he had applied for and that it was under no liability.

A. v. B.

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

. *57 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. *63 [Id. § 112 comment l, illustration 2.]

State v. Jamar J. Myers (082858)(Mercer County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2022

The Court reviews those cases in detail and notes that even inquiries or investigative techniques that do not qualify as searches and seizures must still comport with the Equal Protection Clause. … In invalidating the stop, this Court found that the “description of the suspect . . . was clearly inadequate” and explained that “police must have a sufficiently detailed description of the person to be able to identify

Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

84 N.J. 58 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1980

sustained the dismissal of the complaint because it revealed only that "there was a dispute over the merits of the new product," and because no public policy is violated when a company discharges an employee who is not qualified … The "Declaration of Helsinki" of the World Medical Association established guidelines for conducting medical experimentation on humans.

Application of Triffin

151 N.J. 510 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 22, 1997

He gave a qualified “yes” in response to a question concerning Triffin’s honesty, because he felt that Triffin had reneged on a settlement after being given access to Poeta’s client. … Applying the Matthews standard, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Triffin is presently unfit to practice law. There has been no showing of rehabilitation.

Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works

206 N.J. 243 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 2011

Turning to his claim that his decision to take an early retirement could qualify as constructive discharge, with the resulting, albeit unspoken, front and back pay claim, the Court concluded that it could not. … We answered this question clearly in Shepherd, explaining that lost wages are caused by allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory conduct only when discharge, either actual or constructive, can be proven.

Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Ed. v. Caffiero

86 N.J. 308 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 1981

Although it appears that the parents made certain admissions for purposes of the motion, the record does not indicate clearly what those admissions were. … The predecessor of this statute was enacted in 1867 as part of an act establishing the public school system. L. 1867, c. 179.

In the Matter of Establishment of Congressional Districts by the New Jersey Redistricting Commission (086587)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 3, 2022

It calls upon the Court to select, by a majority vote, the person “more qualified by education and occupational experience, by prior public service in government or otherwise, and by demonstrated ability to represent the … contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

State v. Peter Nyema (085146)(Mercer County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2022

The Court reviews those cases in detail and notes that even inquiries or investigative techniques that do not qualify as searches and seizures must still comport with the Equal Protection Clause. … In invalidating the stop, this Court found that the “description of the suspect . . . was clearly inadequate” and explained that “police must have a sufficiently detailed description of the person to be able to identify

PT & L. CONST. v. Dept. of Transp.

108 N.J. 539 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 19, 1987

Annotation, "Public Contracts: Duty of Public Authority to Disclose to Contractor Information, Allegedly in its Possession, Affecting Cost or Feasibility of Project," 86 A.L.R. 3d 182 (1978) (where not prohibited by a sovereign immunity … First, there was the so-called "Madigan-Hyland letter," dated December 30, 1964. [12] This letter *559 clearly disclosed to the State that working conditions at the site would impose unusual difficulties for a construction

Jones v. Creveling

19 N.J.L. 127 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1842

In another part of bis opinion, Chief Justice Kent says: “ Courts have required some new or additional cause for enlarging the bounty, before they have held it cumulative, unless the words of the will clearly showed the intent … L. five hundred pounds; and afterwards in codicil, gave him the same sum, the Lord Chancellor established both legacies ; not because they had been given in different instruments; but because in the codicil, he had described

Moshe Rozenblit v. Marcia v. Lyles (083434) (Hudson County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 3, 2021

Boards of education are not authorized but required to grant paid leave to athletes who qualify under N.J.S.A. 18A:30-8. … Here, the Association indisputably benefits from the full-time contributions of Greco and Thorp, and the releasees clearly perform tasks at the Association’s direction.

ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burke

153 N.J. 480 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1998

Some schools even open their doors earlier in the morning to establish free breakfast programs for children who qualify because of low family income. … These children clearly were eager, ready and learning.” App. I at 605, 710 A.2d at 512.

Vasconi v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

124 N.J. 338 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1991

His father qualified as the administrator of his estate. … Finally, this is not a case in which the insured has clearly manifested the intent to comply with the insurer's procedures for changing the beneficiary. See, e.g., Novern, supra, 107 N.J.

Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman

32 N.J. 199 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1960

But the second proposition is qualified by limitations which compound the difficulties of one who assails the legislative decision. … It is readily apparent that some of the exceptions are clearly based on necessity.

State v. Williams

184 N.J. 432 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2005

Defendant explains that his defense depends on whether he can establish that he acted in self-defense. … Defendant asserts, and the State disagrees, that the qualifier “substantially” represents an unconstitutional evidentiary restriction.

State v. James

144 N.J. 538 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1996

At trial, Abaza testified that he was able to see the faces of both assailants clearly. Immediately after the assailants fled, Abaza walked across the street to a pay phone and called the police. … The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a new trial and found that defendant qualified as a persistent offender, thus making him eligible for an extended term.