Case law

C. v. C.

54 N.J. 223 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1969

In the past, although admittedly in another context (common law immunity), we have not hesitated to initiate change in a well established doctrine in an attempt to bring the law into focus with modern society. … We qualify this holding only because it is not possible to foresee all situations which might arise.

Yanhko v. Fane

70 N.J. 528 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 7, 1976

Otherwise stated, such ordinances are thought to be enacted for the benefit of the government, so that an injured passerby cannot qualify as "a member of the class for whose benefit the provision was adopted." … Why should he take this risk when he can remain immune by ignoring the danger completely?

Cooper Hospital v. City of Camden

68 N.J.L. 691 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1903

“The legislature shall not pass private, local or special laws * * * granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. … supplement of 1849, the county commissioners of a county through which the road passed w-eare authorized to *701 subscribe for stock in the railroad company and issue bonds to pay for the same, provided a majority of the qualified

Derrickson v. Smith

27 N.J.L. 166 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1858

, any exemption or immunity from personal liability for the debts of the company, to be contracted in its corporate name and capacity. ■» Without calling in question the soundness of this conclusion, but conceding, for the … The statute is clearly and purely penal. The declaration, -although nominally upon promises, negatives all promises, and claims a liability upon a mere default. The case of Corning v.

Card v. Wilkins

61 N.J.L. 296 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1898

In view of this evidence the trial judge was asked to charge the jury that if they found that plaintiff was explicitly and clearly forbidden by defendants or their agent to do the act in which he received his injury he could … The doctrine would be deprived of any practical application if the immunity of the master would not exist except the servant knew the danger, for if that danger was patent and obvious, it was one which the employe took.the

State v. Seefeldt

51 N.J. 472 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1968

The affidavit and testimony clearly established probable cause for a belief that the defendant had been involved in the shooting of her husband and the defendant does not contend otherwise on this appeal. … Alternatively, she contends that the circumstances of her return to New Jersey clothed her with immunity from arrest under N. J. S. 2A :81—21 as a material witness.

Independent Electricians & Electrical Contractors' Ass'n v. New Jersey Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors

48 N.J. 413 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1967

The scheme of the act, as the statutory title indicates, is clearly to regulate the business of electrical contracting for hire and not to qualify and license the individual master or journeyman electricians who actually … The statute directs that the examination “shall be so designed as to establish the competence and qualification of the applicant to perform and supervise the various phases of electrical contracting work,” N. J. S.

State v. Fuller

118 N.J. 75 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1990

At the other extreme, a blanket prohibition against the taking of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly … Questions that an accused might ask regarding food, drink, and other necessities surely would not qualify as defendant-initiated conversations for the purposes of today’s inquiry.

Hager v. Weber

7 N.J. 201 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1951

that are present in every case” and make the judgment “as to them no longer the end of litigation but a mere intermediate phase of legal strife” in substance and effect tends “to alter the character of the judgment and qualify … The indubitable principle of the Kohl and Knight cases is that the “finality” inherent in the then constitutional courts did not render immune to appellate review a verdict that plainly transcended the province of the jury

Berg v. Reaction Motors Division

37 N.J. 396 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1962

Clearly, each case must be governed by its own peculiar facts. … Extension of the Government’s immunity to independent contractors would run counter to recent trends and expressions which emphasize the need for restricting the immunity and the rightness of affording relief to those who

New Jersey Chapter, American Institute of Planners v. New Jersey State Board of Professional Planners

48 N.J. 581 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 20, 1967

The proposal encountered opposition from other established professional groups, principally engineers, land surveyors and architects, who were already subject to separate licensing statutes and who had qualified for licenses … The function of the licensed land surveyor is described in the pertinent statute as “[S]urveying of areas for their correct determination and description and for conveyancing, and for- the establishment or re-establishment

Kahrar v. Borough of Wallington

171 N.J. 3 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 27, 2002

In response, the Legislature adopted the Tort Claims Act in 1972, primarily to “re-establish immunity of public entities in New Jersey, on a basis more current and equitable than that which had obtained prior to Willis.” … We cannot conceivably impute to the Legislature an intention to deprive plaintiffs who sustain permanent injuries of that quality, and that are so clearly susceptible to objective medical evaluation and confirmation, of the

Betts v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance

90 N.J.L. 632 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1917

Betts, supra, establishes, that the uncontroverted fact that Snively, both unlicensed and unregistered to practice dentistry, did, as an assistant to Dr. … These acts were clearly in express violation of the statute which forbids dental operations by an unlicensed person.

State v. Young

93 N.J.L. 396 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 17, 1919

In order for the defendant to avail himself of any legal error, the record must show that the judicial' action of the court on the admissibility of the question was *411 promptly invoked, and, as it clearly appears, tliat … , of immunity from *412 prosecution under the indictment referred to.

Kleinfeld v. the General Auto Sales Co.

118 N.J.L. 67 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 1937

It was, therefore, clearly obiler diclum. Crescent Ring Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 103 N. J. L. 89; 133 Atl. Rep. 106 . … The provisions of the statute and the rules of court permit of no doubti Suffice it to observe that plaintiff's burden to establish ownership in himself, absolute or qualified, with the right of exclusive possession at the

HASTINGS BY HASTINGS v. Hastings

33 N.J. 247 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 18, 1960

And it should not be overlooked that the principle plaintiff asks us to establish would be applicable to injuries suffered in the home as well as in the family car and that an injured parent would also have to be permitted … Whatever force this argument may have on other types of action, it clearly has no bearing on the type of action instituted in the instant matter. In Borst v.

State v. Cagno

211 N.J. 488 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 2012

He was again granted immunity but persisted in refusing to answer questions, and he was held in contempt. … Thus, any possibility of confusion is irrelevant and not “clearly capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2. C.

State ex rel. Schalk v. Wrightson

58 N.J.L. 50 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1895

All that the Engeman case decided is, that a justice of the Supreme Court was qualified to preside in the trial of an indictment in the Passaic Quarter Sessions. … If we regard substance and not mere form, in neither case could judges, appointed in contravention of the provision of the fundamental law, be qualified to act. .

McKelvey v. Pierce

173 N.J. 26 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 2002

Clause clearly prevents review by a civil court. … It reasoned that the first amendment does not immunize the church from all temporal claims made against it. As we noted in Costello Publishing Co. v.

In Re Referendum on City of Trenton Ordinance 09-02

201 N.J. 349 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 6, 2010

The protest referendum is a fundamental element of the covenant that the Faulkner Act establishes between the government and the people. … The burden is on the party seeking to defeat the Faulkner Act to clearly establish the existence of a contrary legislative intent. VI.