Case law

State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (084603) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 23, 2021

Last, the court found that Melvin’s record qualified him as a persistent offender. … [S]he was clearly -- she was clearly orchestrating the events, providing instruction. She was in charge. Although she did not pull the trigger. They did so on her orders.

State v. Mark Melvin (083298) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 23, 2021

Last, the court found that Melvin’s record qualified him as a persistent offender. … [S]he was clearly -- she was clearly orchestrating the events, providing instruction. She was in charge. Although she did not pull the trigger. They did so on her orders.

RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

234 N.J. 459 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 2018

"To the extent that the trial court interprets the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts, we review its conclusions de novo." Ibid. ; accord Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. … The invalid indemnification provision of the PTI agreement was clearly inadmissible in this case, either as the basis for the motion court's grant of partial summary judgment or as the dispositive evidence in the non-jury

State v. Singletary

80 N.J. 55 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 23, 1979

After thoroughly interrogating a prospective juror on the voir dire, the trial court concluded that he was qualified to serve. … And it explains the success of the whole judicial establishment. Procedure has become a practical means to an end.

In the Matter of the Expungement Petition

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 2015

It contends that J.S., convicted of two offenses five days apart, is clearly outside of the parameters of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a). B. … Section 2(a) also specifies that, in order to qualify and apply for an expungement, a person must be able to assert that he or she “has not been adjudged a disorderly person or petty disorderly person on more than two

State v. Sterling

215 N.J. 65 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 29, 2013

The identity of KG.’s attacker clearly is a[sic] issue. The strong similarities between the two assaults suggest that the same person committed them. … Charges need not be identical to qualify as “similar” for purposes of joinder under Rule 3:7-6. See, e.g., State v.

State v. Josephs

174 N.J. 44 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 2002

Sergeant Burkhart, qualified as an expert in ballistics and firearms identification, established that all of the nine millimeter bullets had been fired from one gun, all the .45 caliber bullets had been fired from a second … Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 , 257 A.2d 699 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 930 , 90 S.Ct. 2254 , 26 L.Ed.2d 797 (1970) (stating that jury charge will qualify as plain error if there is “legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially

State v. Clausell

121 N.J. 298 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 30, 1990

Schall, a cocaine dealer who was the girlfriend of defendant's brother, Johnny Clausell, testified under a grant of immunity. … It contends that evidence in the record clearly establishes a sufficient waiver of rights by defendant.

Flomerfelt v. Cardiello

202 N.J. 432 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 7, 2010

That is, the phrase is not always used alone, but may be accompanied by qualifying *1003 phrases that impact upon its interpretation. … As Judge Cuff explained, "[i]t is this activity which the exclusion clearly and expressly addresses.

In Re Petition for Substantive Certification Filed by the Township of Warren

132 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 1993

After the projected number of households in each age cohort has been calculated for both 1987 and 1993, statewide 1980-based income statistics are used to project the percentage of households in each age cohort that will qualify … whether there is substantial evidence and records to support the findings upon which the agency based application of the legislative policies; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

206 N.J. 332 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 2011

obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right.” … Given his extensive background and recognized achievements in his field, *448 Hanushek was qualified as an expert in educational finance policy.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.M.

189 N.J. 261 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 8, 2007

The evidence establishes that the father is unable to protect the son. Dr. … From that vantage point, the record clearly justifies the trial court's ruling.

Nash v. Board of Adjustment of Morris Tp.

96 N.J. 97 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1984

This is clearly erroneous. The positive criteria remain intact and continue to refer to a lot's utility as a buildable lot. Financial loss alone has never been a basis for a finding of hardship under the statute. … The Board recognizes both as well qualified but in expressing its *122 opinion draws upon its own expertise and discretion.

LaFage v. Jani

166 N.J. 412 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 22, 2001

brought in the name of an administrator ad prosequendum of the decedent for whose death damages are sought, except where decedent dies testate and his will is probated, in which event the executor named in the will and qualifying … The legislative purpose behind the Wrongful Death Act “clearly embraces the intent to create an entirely new and distinctive cause of action where none existed before.”

Reilly v. AAA Mid-Atlantic Insurance

194 N.J. 474 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2008

Finally, the Department urges us to reject plaintiffs argument that the regulation’s language itself establishes a general negligence standard. … RESPONSE: The Department agrees that the rule should include a list of the types of accidents where the driver is clearly not responsible and has revised this section accordingly.

Den, Lloyd ux. Bilderback & Fox v. Urison

2 N.J.L. 213 · 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 … Rowles, 1 Atk. 175, 182, attempted to qualify the general rule in the construction of a particular act, in a (¡ase where injustice to an individual, and ruin to the mercantile business, would follow from a rigid adherence

State v. Forcella

52 N.J. 263 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 3, 1968

Our problem arises because under the federal kidnapping statute a defendant could avoid the death penalty not only by waiving a jury, but also by pleading guilty, and the opinion in Jachson speaks of both bases of immunity … We should not subject all defendants to the risk of a death sentence unless that course is clearly required. Nor can we suspend all prosecutions in so important an area until the issue is finally settled.

J.K. v. New Jersey State Parole Board (084035) (Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 2021

The Act “created and established within the Department of Corrections” the Board. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.47(a). … However, the Board quite clearly advised J.K. that his petition was “devoid of any information on which to assess the supervising or monitoring of [J.K.’s] compliance with” CSL.

L.R. v. Camden City Public School District (080333)(Camden, Morris, and Somerset Counties and Statewide)

238 N.J. 547 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 17, 2019

Id. at 96-97. 14 qualify as a “bona fide researcher[]” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e)(16). Id. at 87-89. … Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan, 369 N.J. Super. 2, 43 (App. Div. 2004)).

Sun Chemical Corporation v. Fike Corporation (082815)(Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 29, 2020

Fike argues that the cost of the Suppression System does not qualify as “damage . . . to the product itself” under N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1(b)(2)(a) because the Suppression System was not defective and was not damaged during the … That claim, we explained, “does not fall within an exception to the PLA, but rather clearly falls within its scope.” Id. at 66. IV.