Case law

State v. Chun

194 N.J. 54 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 17, 2008

Nevertheless, before we can conclude that scientific test results are admissible in evidence, the proponent of the scientific device must bear its burden to “clearly establish” that the device or the test meets the standard … All of the twelve documents that the Special Master identified qualify as business records in the traditional sense.

Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Corp.

139 N.J. 392 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1995

Plaintiffs, therefore, have failed to establish that Locklin demonstrated actual malice in his reporting. … Although we discard the label, we adhere to the principle that to overcome a qualified or conditional privilege, a plaintiff must establish that the publisher knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless disregard

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. George Harms Construction Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 2024

Reg. 7,363 (Feb. 4, 2022) (defining a PLA as a “pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project” … The PLA required the selected contractor and all subcontractors to hire at least 75% of their project workforce from those identified local unions; otherwise qualified individuals who were either non-union laborers or

Christopher Maia v. IEW Construction Group

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 2024

In Hildreth, we determined whether certain amendments to the Child Sexual Abuse Act (CSAA), Charitable Immunity Act (CIA), and Tort Claims Act (TCA), that went into effect on December 1, 2019, applied retroactively or … First, regarding the Legislature’s expression of intent, courts generally “enforce newly enacted substantive statutes prospectively, unless [the Legislature] clearly expresses a contrary intent.”

Village of Ridgefield Park v. New York, Susquehanna & Western Railway Corp.

163 N.J. 446 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 2000

jurisdiction, the Appellate Division found that the Village must first seek relief from the STB: "As the agency with authority delegated from Congress to implement the provisions of the ICC Termination Act, the STB is uniquely qualified … Our ruling here is premature and out of conformity, not only with the principles of preemption, but with the well-established rule that litigation is to proceed in a cohesive, and not piecemeal, manner.

Meadowlands Regional Redevelopment Agency v. State

63 N.J. 35 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1973

Its finding is clearly correct. … The Sports and Exposition Complex established under N.J.S.A. 5:10-1 et seq. is not at odds with the purpose of the Meadowlands Act.

Williams v. Carle

10 N.J. Eq. 543 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1856

He denies all knowledge or information of any evidence by which the fact can be established. … The facts thus established make the trust thus created, as against the appellant, illegal and void. 3.

Oches v. Township of Middletown Police Department

155 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1998

The language in that former version is clearly broader than that contained in the present statute, thereby demonstrating the Legislature’s intent to limit the type of charges for which counsel fee reimbursement may be provided … Even the majority agrees that Oches’s conduct does not qualify for reimbursement under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-155.

Cedar Cove, Inc. v. Stanzione

122 N.J. 202 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 29, 1991

It is the interpretation of the statute's qualifying phrase "for such purposes" that is critical to whether the restriction on future sale may apply. … It is presumed that a Legislature intends statutory language to have its ordinary and well understood meaning unless a special meaning is clearly indicated. Levin v.

State v. Muhammad

145 N.J. 23 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1996

If they did not, then a statute passed pursuant to the amendment that clearly intends to limit other constitutional protections is surely not immune from constitutional challenge. … Clearly, the Court was not suggesting that victim-impact evidence should be allowed in every capital prosecution.

Lewis v. Harris

188 N.J. 415 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 25, 2006

In analyzing the substantive due process claim, Judge Skillman con- *429 eluded that “[m]arriage between members of the same sex is clearly not a fundamental right.” … It is a crime for a public official to deny a person any “right, privilege, power or immunity” on the basis of sexual orientation. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-6(a).

State v. Butler

27 N.J. 560 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1958

A person does not have to be entirely sound mentally in order to qualify as a. witness. A certain minimal intelligence is required. … It is often difficult to draw the line between what is doubtfully permissible and what is clearly wrong.

Ramon Cuevas v. Wentworth Group(075077)

226 N.J. 480 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 2016

That presumption is not overcome unless a defendant can establish, clearly and convincingly, that the award is a miscarriage of justice. … The presumption of correctness that attaches to a damages award is not overcome unless a defendant can establish, “clearly and convincingly,” that the award is “a miscarriage of justice.”

State v. Cooper

151 N.J. 326 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 20, 1997

Defendant offers little reason to change that established practice. … Again, neither the court nor the prosecutor qualified those statements by telling the jury that it had a third alternative, namely, rejection of both factors.

State v. Erazo

126 N.J. 112 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 1991

Often, however, the court would not allow counsel to exceed the limit, and even the State was not immune to being cut off in the middle of important questioning. … In Williams II, supra, the Court held that the trial court’s failure to conduct a searching voir dire, combined with the failure to excuse for cause a juror who clearly should have been excused, required reversal of defendant

State v. Steven L. Bookman (085775) (Camden County and Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 24, 2022

A motion court’s findings should not be disturbed unless “they are so clearly mistaken ‘that the interests of justice demand intervention 11 and correction.’” Ibid. … This Court has held that judicial officials are qualified to make the finding of probable cause required for an arrest warrant because the standard “is designed to be applied by laymen” based on “the factual and practical

Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

199 N.J. 140 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 2009

He was qualified as an expert in education policy, finance and adequacy study methodology. … He was qualified as an expert in school finance, educational costing methods and studies.

Switz v. Township of Middletown

23 N.J. 580 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 11, 1957

Jersey had reached the point that a constitutional amendment was passed by two successive Legislatures and adopted by the people “at a special election to be held for that purpose only * * * by a majority of the electors qualified … Any such weakness on the part of the court in *634 enforcing what is clearly the law can lead only to disrespect of its judgment.

Bell v. Gough

23 N.J.L. 624 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1852

So far as they regard dor minion and power over the soil, and property in it, the former is absolute, subject only to the power of eminent domain in the government, the latter qualified or fiduciary. … In that description Harsimus bay, with its adjacent shores covering the disputed premises, are most clearly included.

In Re the Closing of Jamesburg High School

83 N.J. 540 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1980

The desirability of such a provision is clearly for the legislature and not the courts to determine. [ Id. at 333-34 .] … Clearly, such power is not conferred by the express terms of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6.1.