Case law

State of New Jersey v. Andrew Higginbotham

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 8, 2024

Second, unlike a typical facial challenge, a First Amendment overbreadth challenge does not require the defendant to “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.” … N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), (b), and (c). 31 While the communications only had to “cause annoyance or alarm” to qualify as harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) (emphasis added), the course of

Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo

97 N.J. 339 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1984

Procanik that she "had nothing to worry about because she had become immune to German Measles as a child." In fact, the "past infection" disclosed by the tests was the German measles that had prompted Mrs. … Clearly then what confronts the Court is not divining a standard by which one can know whether nonexistence is to be preferred over existence.

Caravaggio v. D'AGOSTINI

166 N.J. 237 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 2001

After the hearing, at which the facts related in this opinion were established and presumably viewed in a light most favorable to Mrs. … Second, even if defendant-doctor qualifies as a third party, plaintiff had evidence that revealed the doctor's "possible complicity."

Givaudan Fragrances Corporation v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company(076523)

227 N.J. 322 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 2017

First, the trial judge rejected Fragrances’s argument that claimed policy rights as an affiliated corporation; the court determined that policies which “cover affiliated corporations, very clearly . . . can only apply … Finally, defendants asserted Fragrances is not qualified to be an insured affiliate of Givaudan Corporation. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded. Givaudan Fragrances Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur.

Cooper v. Cooper

99 N.J. 42 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 1984

Such a pattern establishes the noncustodial's parent's interest in maintaining a good relationship with the child. … This statute clearly places the burden of showing cause on the parent seeking to remove the children from the state. This legislation supplements the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court. Fantony v.

Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.

76 N.J. 152 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 26, 1978

It will suffice for purposes of the case at bar, which *180 is clearly a situation of alleged design defect, that the Restatement criterion of “unreasonably dangerous” remains soundly applicable thereto. … The apparent intent was to establish that there was no such regulation.

State v. Pickles

46 N.J. 542 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 21, 1966

The State recognized clearly that proof of the crime charged would be limited to the period between September 1, 1962 and October 9, 1962. … The medical evidence established the primary cause of Michael’s death as toxic hepatitis produced by infection resulting from his third degree burns.

State v. Vawter

136 N.J. 56 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 26, 1994

Law Art. 27, § 10A, qualifies as speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Sheldon, supra, 629 A. 2d at 757 . … The Washington court declared that the statute "clearly regulates protected symbolic speech * * *." Talley, supra, 858 P. 2d at 230 . See also State v.

State v. Ricky Wright (073137)

221 N.J. 456 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 19, 2015

We do not find that the third-party intervention doctrine qualifies as an exception here. … If private parties tell the police about unlawful activities inside a person’s home, the police can use that information to establish probable cause and seek a search warrant.

Vergopia v. Shaker

191 N.J. 217 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 2007

Clearly, Hometown provides broad protection to its directors and officers sued for their actions, taken in any capacity, relating to the corporation. … Thus, Hometown encourages highly qualified individuals to serve as leaders of the corporation without fear of liability for acts performed in furtherance of Hometown's interest. See VonFeldt, supra, 714 A. 2d at 84 .

City of Hackensack v. Winner

82 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1980

The judge assigned to a contested case presumably will have the expertise, knowledge, training and background to qualify him or her to preside over the particular case. N.J.S.A. 52:14F-6. … If true, the denials would clearly constitute unfair employer practices. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.4(a)(1), (3).

Ramon Cuevas v. Wentworth Group(075077)

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. Bey

137 N.J. 334 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1994

That the [other defendants] were spared their lives does not establish a pattern of life-sentencing for such killings. … It is totally at odds with what is a fundamental condition of deathworthiness, namely, the unanimous concurrence of qualified jurors that the defendant's life shall be forfeited.

In the Matter of Carlia M. Brady (083462)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 6, 2020

I do not believe that the evidence clearly and convincingly proves that Judge Brady was involved in a grand deception. … I do hold, however, that the evidence must establish “a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable [the factfinder

State v. Henderson

208 N.J. 208 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 24, 2011

New Jersey is not immune. The parties noted that misidentifieations factored into three of the five reported DNA exonerations in our State. … Those criteria can be met in some cases by qualified experts seeking to testify about the import and effect of certain variables discussed in section VI.

State v. Signo Trading International, Inc.

130 N.J. 51 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 23, 1992

The case also raises the possibility that a court might find that the State's interest in its air and land might qualify as third-party property damage. … Because of the parties' unequal bargaining power, courts have established the doctrine of "reasonable expectations."

State v. Hampton

61 N.J. 250 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 17, 1972

Therefore, as we have already indicated, under ordinary circumstances if the pre- Smith doctrine still applied, a judge's ruling that Miranda had been complied with clearly would have been sufficient under Jackson . … The authority thus given the sentencing judge qualifies "imprisonment for life," which is itself a maximum and not a minimum term, [1] thus indicating the Legislature had the maximum in mind.

In Re Lead Paint Litigation

191 N.J. 405 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 2007

We then address the identity of defendants in terms of whether they qualify as actors whose conduct supports liability for creating the public nuisance. … A statute should be interpreted to subsume pre-existing common law remedies only if that intention is "clearly and plainly expressed." Velazquez, supra, 172 N.J. at 257 , 798 A. 2d 51 .

State v. Harvey

159 N.J. 277 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1999

The Court has clearly failed to meet this burden. … The testifying doctor stated clearly that Williams is "not mentally retarded but culturally retarded."

In Re Breslin

171 N.J. 235 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 28, 2002

Would it be fair to say that everyone that had been hired as a police officer in Lyndhurst under your watch got the job because they were qualified and applied in the normal course of events? A. Yes, sir. Q. … Because we are persuaded that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence of Respondent’s participation in a bribe attempt, that recommendation clearly is not appropriate.