Case law

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. .

The Kimberley School v. Town of Montclair

2 N.J. 28 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1949

In that act the tax exemption to educational institutions was for the first time qualified by the requirement that they be not conducted for profit and, as so qualified, it still continued to be separated from other exemptions … L. 525, 528-529) The quid pro quo is a familiar element of the action of debt, where it has a precise, technical, and long established meaning, 8 Holdsworth, History of English Law 4, 6; Mait *42 land, Forms of Action at

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.

State v. Jefimowicz

119 N.J. 152 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 30, 1990

If the record on its face clearly establishes that defendant is a repeat Graves Act offender, a court may sentence defendant to an extended-term sentence. … Because the record clearly establishes defendant’s prior Graves Act conviction, no further hearing was required to clarify or elucidate the nature of that conviction.

State v. Grundy

136 N.J.L. 96 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 16, 1947

This state has no constitutional provision regarding immunity of a witness from answering questions, the answers to which tend to incriminate him. … It is a recognized policy in the law that an accomplice or co-defendant who assists the state by giving evidence against another may receive some beneficial recognition, the form of which is not thoroughly established.

Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.

125 N.J. 421 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1991

Balis was qualified to offer an opinion on human carcinogenesis generally; (2) that as a non-physician he was not qualified to offer an opinion on a specific patient’s cancer and its possible causal relationship to PCBs; … Judge Mikva continued: [A] cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists.

A-25-14 Patricia Delvecchio v. Township of Bridgewater (074936)

224 N.J. 559 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 2016

The question of disability is a medical determination, and the testimony of a qualified witness will assist the jury in making that determination. … the defendant physicians in a medical malpractice case sought to introduce the videotaped depositions of three physicians who had treated the infant plaintiff for seizures, which the plaintiffs claimed were caused by immunizations

Chasin v. Montclair State University

159 N.J. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 2, 1999

If an employee qualifies under that provision, the State is obliged to reimburse that employee for all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 2 Thus, even if an employee is not provided with a defense under the TCA, … The Task Force Report cited N.J.S.A 18A:60-4 and a number of other pre-TCA statutes, and observed “[i]t is apparent that the pattern of immunity established by statute is completely lacking in uniformity and fails to take

Eagle Truck Transport, Inc. v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ETC.

29 N.J. 280 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 10, 1959

Under the procedure established, each state acts as agent for the other in taking claims. … Enlargement of the liability of the fund in that fashion should not be recognized unless clearly manifested by the language of the amendment.

Stark v. Fell

124 N.J.L. 475 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 1940

S. 40:71-9, was to establish with the commission a new and complete form and scope of the municipal government. … The members of the Housing Authority clearly do not come within any of these expressed exceptions.

Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories

97 N.J. 429 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1984

We do not agree that the protective shield of comment k immunizes all prescription drugs. … A trial court’s determination is “not reversed [by an appellate court] unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law.” R. 2:10-1.

Nj Chapt., Am. Ip v. Nj St. Bd. of Prof. 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

Deborah Townsend v. Noah Pierre (072357)

221 N.J. 36 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 2015

It dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against the Township and County based on the immunity afforded to them by the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3. … The Appellate Division envisioned that Bellizzi would be asked “to assume hypothetically that Pierre was unable to see clearly to her left as she made the turn.” Id. at 530.

Agha v. Feiner

198 N.J. 50 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 2009

We agree with the Appellate Division that, over a defense objection, the testifying physicians could not establish the substance of the contested MRI and that only an expert qualified to interpret an MRI could do so. … Thus, on objection, neither could establish the substance of the MRI report.

State v. Haight

31 N.J.L. 399 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1866

The City Council of Charleston , the immunity from state taxation of securities similar to those owned .by these banks, was established. … This was clearly erroneous. The corporation to which the debt is due is not a non-resident, and by the' plain language of the tax law of this state, this credit should have been given to the party taxed.

Harz v. Borough of Spring Lake

234 N.J. 317 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 2018

In the end, however, Harz has not established that the Borough denied her the right to be heard before the Planning Board. … " substantive rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State," N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c).

State v. Boiardo

82 N.J. 446 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 5, 1980

Handler, J., dissenting — Legislature meant to qualify privilege. … This qualified privilege, under Branzburg , would clearly give way to a Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process.

Walton v. Taylor

78 N.J. Eq. 266 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 1911

For his immunity from costs in such a case appellant cites Kinney v. Central Railroad Co., 34 N. J. Law (5 Vr.) 273, and Bell v. Samuels, 60 N. J. … An executor or administrator, complainant in equity, will not be ordered to pay costs unless the suit be clearly groundless or vexatious.”

L.A. v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services

217 N.J. 311 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 23, 2014

threshold requirement that something more than parental negligence is required to establish child abuse under Title 9. … When statutory language “clearly reveals the meaning of the statute, the court’s sole function is to enforce the statute in accordance with those terms.” McCann v.