Case law

Cicchetti v. Morris County Sheriff's Office

194 N.J. 563 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 2008

Finally, the court considered separately whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, were sufficient to establish a hostile work environment claim. … Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 160 , 627 A.2d 144 (1993). 4 During the pendency of the appeal, the appellate panel invited the parties to submit briefs directed to the question of whether plaintiff's disease, HCV, qualified as a "

Thanasoulis v. Winston Towers 200 Ass'n.

110 N.J. 650 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1988

N.J.S.A. 46:8B-15 specifically enumerates some of the Association's powers, which are qualified by the master deed, by-laws, and other provisions of the Act. … The economic benefits of owning and operating the parking garage do not run to any individual Unit Owner, but rather to the Association for the good and welfare of all Unit Owners, as is clearly set forth in the Amended Offering

NCP Litigation Trust v. KPMG LLP

187 N.J. 353 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2006

Those points were made clearly and succinctly by amici curiae the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the New Jersey Society of Certified Public Accountants. … examination report on subject matter for general use; a standard examination report on an assertion for general use; an examination report for general use; an examination report on a subject matter; an examination report with a qualified

Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of Manalapan

140 N.J. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 1995

It provided: (a) Retail stores, shops and markets including establishments engaged in the selling of paint, glass, wallpaper, or hardware items for household use, but not including any establishment engaged in the sale of … A presumption of validity attaches to a zoning ordinance that may be overcome only if an opponent of the ordinance establishes the ordinance is "clearly arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or plainly contrary to fundamental

State v. McDougald

120 N.J. 523 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 12, 1990

After the voir dire questioning, the trial court convened the death-qualified jurors, and the attorneys exercised peremptory challenges until a final jury was chosen. … Accordingly, it cannot be said that the jury failed to evaluate and qualify the evidence offered in mitigation. *572 2.

State v. Guenther

181 N.J. 129 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 9, 2004

and in the use of specific instances of conduct to establish these traits.” … Trial courts are well qualified to determine when such evidence will create the prospect of a mini-trial and when the probative value of that evidence is outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues,

State Board of Assessors v. Central Railroad

48 N.J.L. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1886

It purports to establish a uniform rule of taxation on this subject. … It is in the beginning of the sentence, single and simple, not qualified by any limitations. It must signify all or only some.

Regina Little v. Kia Motors America, Inc.(081691) (Union County and Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 2020

She presented her first theory of classwide damages through the testimony of John Matthews, Ph.D., whom the trial court qualified as an expert in quantitative analysis, statistics, and valuation losses. … The Special Master established fair and workable criteria for a claimant’s recovery of the costs that he or she spent on a brake repair .

C.R. v. M. T.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 22, 2024

And the issue raised by Partners is not necessary to decide this case, as Clara clearly put forth sufficient evidence to show a “possibility of future risk” to her “safety or well-being” under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2). … It is not an element of proof that a victim must establish to obtain an FPO.

C.R. v. M. T.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 22, 2024

And the issue raised by Partners is not necessary to decide this case, as Clara clearly put forth sufficient evidence to show a “possibility of future risk” to her “safety or well-being” under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-16(a)(2). … It is not an element of proof that a victim must establish to obtain an FPO.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. State

124 N.J. 32 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 16, 1991

Further, such a claim has not been established merely on the basis of the percentages of income asserted here. … Overall, the legislature was clearly much more concerned with resolving an impasse concerning automobile insurance costs and availability, than it was with placing particular burdens on insurers.

State v. Di Frisco

118 N.J. 253 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 1990

Was DiFrisco's offer to testify against Franciotti conditioned on a deal that the prosecutor forego the death penalty against him or perhaps give him immunity? … Both these aggravating factors, i.e., killing for pay and to avoid detection, clearly overlap.

Committee to Recall Menendez v. Wells

204 N.J. 79 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 18, 2010

Thus, “[v]oting is clearly a fundamental right.” Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 721 , 94 S.Ct. 1315, 1322 , 39 L.Ed.2d 702, 712 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring). … Finally, declaring unconstitutional a provision of our State Constitution and its implementing legislation clearly and directly frustrates the expressed will of the people of New Jersey.

State v. Lurdes Rosario (077420) (Monmouth and Statewide)

229 N.J. 263 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 2017

At the very latest, amicus contends that when Campan made his request for identification, defendant was clearly subjected to an investigative detention. … Accordingly, I agree with the Adubato panel’s reasoning and cannot find justification in qualifying Campan’s mere approach of the vehicle as determinative.

Standard Motor Freight, Inc. v. LOCAL UNION NO. 560, INTERN. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

49 N.J. 83 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 20, 1967

If it cannot, by reason of the equal number of its members, the dispute is referred to the second step intra-industry tribunal, the Joint Area *89 Committee. 1 This body, likewise originally established by a prior contract … Speaking generally, seniority, based on the date of hiring, applies not only to lay-offs and rehiring, but also to the right to the highest paid jobs (if *94 qualified), to choice of shift, to the privilege of having the

Amoresano v. Laufgas

171 N.J. 532 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 29, 2002

In a certification filed on April 20, 1998, defendant stated that “Judge Passero clearly is motivated by his close relation with the Political parties not the judicial system.” … The power of our courts to punish for contempt is long established. In re Buehrer, 50 N.J. 501, 513 , 236 A.2d 592 (1967).

E & J Equities v. Board of Adjustment of the Township of Franklin(075207)

226 N.J. 549 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 2016

When speech is restricted, there must be alternative means of communicating the message, although there is some disagreement as to what are qualified alternative channels. … Clearly, the action by the governing body was informed by the work of the Planning Board and the advice of the Township Planner.

Freeman v. Brittin

17 N.J.L. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1839

Shelley has been overruled, and the doctrine sought to be established by it, completely put down. … most clearly the former; and yet, in what does that differ from the transfer and indorsement of a note?

Commc'ns Workers of Am. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n

234 N.J. 483 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 2018

Establish, administer, amend and continuously review a State classification plan governing all positions in State service and similar plans for political subdivisions; b. Establish, consolidate and abolish titles; c. … The job banding rule abandons the statutory practice by which the Commission certifies three qualified candidates and the appointing authority selects one of those three candidates for the position; it instead authorizes

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

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