Case law

Roadway Express, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

50 N.J. 471 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 18, 1967

Local business establishments made emergency major motor repairs to these vehicles on a contractual basis. … It remains established that a tax on an exclusively interstate business verbally based solely on the privilege of doing such business in the state is constitutionally forbidden.

Campbell v. Department of Civil Service

39 N.J. 556 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 1963

A. 11:7-7) expressly subjects deputy directors to the removal provisions of the civil service law, and that if those provisions were not available, the deputy directors would be immune from disciplinary control except perhaps … The appellant’s final contention, i. e., that the Civil Service Commission’s determination was contrary to the evidence, clearly lacks merit.

In Re Investigation Regarding Ringwood Fact Finding Committee Re Violation of N. J. S. A. 19:34-38.1

65 N.J. 512 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 1974

Express legislative intent is clearly wanting here. … This reason is so clearly unsound as to be almost absurd.

Wilentz v. Hendrickson

135 N.J. Eq. 244 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1944

This will presently more clearly appear. … Governor Edison appointed a committee of eminent and qualified citizens, among them the director of Princeton Surveys of Princeton University, to investigate the facts, study the questions involved and advise a solution.

Linden Motor Freight Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.

40 N.J. 511 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1963

It specifically seeks a holding that “accidental results of voluntarily undertaken acts qualify as accidental means.” … That the true rationale, no matter what an opinion sajrs, is the appraisal of the causes of the injury made by a court playing the role of the average policyholder is most clearly demonstrated by the course of the decisions

State v. Brooks

175 N.J. 215 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 25, 2002

Stated differently, PTI's aim is to provide prosecutors an alternate method to dispose of charges levied against qualified applicants consistent with the interest of the applicant and the overall interests of society and … In order to overcome the prosecutorial veto of his admission into PTI, Brooks must clearly and convincingly establish a patent and gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. State v.

State v. Juliano

103 N.J.L. 663 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1927

The statement of such a result evinces that the currently serving jury must of necessity be the general panel within the contemplation of the statute, and the only panel from which jurors qualified to try the defendants could … The attempt of the defendants to meet the issue thus raised by denial and by proof of an alibi is not convincing; and some of this proof is clearly fabricated.

State v. Burris

145 N.J. 509 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1996

Federal law at the time clearly recognized the impeachment exception. See Oregon v. … Prior to eliciting the second statement, Detective Wright established that Burris understood her rights.

Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gilchrist Brothers, Inc.

85 N.J. 550 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 1981

Section 12 of the Act plainly and clearly has effectively *566 eliminated that element of damages. … Under today's ruling the tortfeasor is given immunity from liability for the PIP damages he caused and Aetna's right to reimbursement for PIP obligations incurred is limited to requests for rate increases from the Department

State v. Cooper

159 N.J. 55 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1999

Defendant’s I.Q. qualifies him as mildly retarded. *177 He was sentenced to life. … The AOC narrative states clearly that Lippen lied to law enforcement officers at first.

O Builders & Associates Inc. v. Yuna Corp.

206 N.J. 109 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 25, 2011

claimed three-hour length of the consultation and the assertion that defendant “is a small mom and pop restaurant,” defendant states in the negative that “it is inconceivable that confidential information for this small establishment … In re Modanlo, 342 B.R. 230, 237 (D.Md.2006) (denying disqualification of creditor’s counsel under Maryland’s RPC 1.18 because movant “ha[d] not shown that any information shared with [counsel sought to be disqualified] qualifies

Segal v. Lynch

211 N.J. 230 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 2012

The Guidelines establish different procedures to deal with grievances and pay disputes. Grievance procedures are set forth in the Termination/Grievanee section. … Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 159 , 416 A.2d 45 (1980) (holding that “a party must clearly demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact before a hearing is necessary”); Faucett v.

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Robert Mathew Hurley & Devil Eleven, Inc.

166 N.J. 260 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 29, 2001

“Insured” means any person or organization qualifying as an insured in the WHO IS INSURED section of the applicable insurance. … Progressive argues that coverage should be denied because the declarations page of Progressive’s policy clearly indicates that UM coverage is for specified vehicles only.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W.

103 N.J. 591 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1986

See In re Guardianship of R., supra, 155 N.J.Super. at 193 (“Division has the burden of establishing [the] grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence”) (citing In re Guardianship of B.C.H. … The clinical psychologist who testified at trial concluded that the two girls clearly needed to remain together.

State v. Coleman

46 N.J. 16 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 8, 1965

At the trial, the killings and the attendant circumstances were overwhelmingly established by the State’s evidence which included, inter alia, testimony from the defendant’s daughter who saw Millie lying on the floor and … Baruch, a duly qualified physician. Dr. Baruch testified that he found the defendant understood his situation, was able to consult intelligently with counsel, and was able to proceed with the trial.

O'Brien v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.

44 N.J. 25 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 1965

The order under discussion in this case clearly does not *36 reveal a case under (a) or (b); its tenor more closely resembles what it appears to have been, a (c) case, i. e., an ex parle application. … Section 13.1-59 of the Virginia Corporation Law establishes the procedure for issuance of a certificate of amendment of the articles of incorporation.

Barcon Associates, Inc. v. Tri-County Asphalt Corp.

86 N.J. 179 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 1981

II Commercial arbitration is a long-established practice in New Jersey consistently encouraged by the Legislature. … It is clearly in the interests of all concerned for the two parties to review the disclosures made by arbitrators under the rule in a spirit of fairness and reasonableness.

Silent Hoist & Crane Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

100 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 1985

Silent Hoist obtained a certificate of authority and qualified to transact business in New Jersey under N.J.S.A. 14A:13-3 during the relevant years. … Clearly, the investment operation was not a discrete business enterprise; it was merely incidental to the company’s manufacturing business.

State v. Deatore

70 N.J. 100 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 13, 1976

Add to this the involved factors of confusion and potential prejudice and one can see quite clearly why exclusion is the desirable and fairer rule. *117 Por silence by a criminal suspect in custody or under interrogation … The defense at trial was that the shooting was accidental. 11 The proofs up to the point of the cross-examination in question established that defendant had not sought medical or other assistance for his injured friend after

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970)

217 N.J. 527 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 2, 2014

“A trial court’s interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference.” Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. … The State should offer “testimony of a well qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation of the child’s relationship” with the natural parents and the foster