Case law

State v. Calabrese

107 N.J.L. 115 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1930

All of the names were those of potential jurors and presumably qualified to serve. That some of those thus qualified were not in the box at the time could by no possibility prejudice the defendants. … The evidence of the crime clearly established that at the time of the killing the defendants were engaged in an attempted robbery, so much being admitted by the defendant-witness Calabrese, and it was on this assumption that

Ahto v. Weaver

39 N.J. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 1963

(dissenting as to Weaver): The common law doctrine against the holding of incompatible offices was high-minded and clearly furthered the public interest. … We believe, as does the majority, that the legislative enactment is not unconstitutional and that it serves to immunize Mr. Klein’s dual holding of his two elective offices. But the Legislature did not immunize Mr.

Estate of Chin v. St. Barnabas Medical Center

160 N.J. 454 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1999

The record clearly demonstrates that the embolism was the direct result of an incorrect hook-up of the hysteroscope. Ms. Chin’s treating physician, defendant Dr. … The general rule in malpractice cases is that “evidence of a deviation from accepted medical standards must be provided by competent and qualified physicians.” Schueler v.

Brambila v. Board of Review

124 N.J. 425 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 1991

IRCA established a three-step legalization process for two categories of illegal aliens, SAWs and pre-1982 entrants. … Consequently, their time worked and wages earned subsequent to November 6, 1986 (IRCA’s effective date), could be used to establish a claim for benefits.

Cook v. State

33 N.J.L. 474 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1868

powers of the state, unless by clear and express words, or an implication as strong and conclusive as express words, is one founded on principles that are incontrovertible, and application of which to cases like this is established … Ogden, in delivering the opinion of the court said: “ It is an essential attribute of sovereignty inherent in the people, and not to be abridged in their hands by presumption, but only by positive legislative enactments clearly

Hancock v. Singer Manufacturing Co.

62 N.J.L. 289 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 1898

It excludes most clearly the idea that the act of 1846 was to be deemed a part of the Singer charter. … In the case last cited Chief Justice Green declared that this principle must be considered as clearly settled.

Krieger v. City of Jersey

27 N.J. 535 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1958

Insofar as plaintiff is concerned, the action is clearly arbitrary. If the power to terminate be assumed, still no warrant would exist to cut short the term of the senior incumbent. … S. 2A :8-5 provides that the magistrate “shall serve for a term of 3 years from the date of his appointment and until his successor is appointed and qualified.”

Howard Savings Inst. of Newark v. Peep

34 N.J. 494 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 10, 1961

We first consider the next-of-kin’s contention that the doctrines of cy pres and deviation are inapplicable to the trust established by Mr. … Clearly, scholarship loan aid is one of those privileges.

In Re the Department of Insurance's Order Nos. A89-119 & A90-125

129 N.J. 365 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 29, 1992

If the Commissioner makes such a determination, the legislative statement and the statute itself both clearly indicate that the Commissioner may modify the statewide average rate change calculated pursuant to the formula. … Neither the statute nor the legislative history contains any qualifying language that would tend to limit the Commissioner’s discretion to modify the statewide average rate by changing only one element of the statutory formula

State v. Dolbow

117 N.J.L. 560 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 1937

It took legislation to qualify them to serve on juries, and this was done by the legislature of 1921, chapter 28, page 50. … By this act and this act alone was the door opened to the members of that sex to participate as qualified jurors.

Read v. Board of Excise Commissioners

77 N.J.L. 33 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 17, 1908

act of the legislature that created these local boards conferred upon them unlimited and exclusive powers of legislation touching the granting of licenses to sell intoxicating liquors or only a particular function and a qualified … On the contrary, its clearly expressed purpose is the administration of excise laws and not their abrogation or repeal.

Witkowski v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.

136 N.J. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1994

that the employer is clearly waiving its right to discharge without cause”). … It was clearly reasonable for Lipton employees to expect that if an employee successfully completes the three-month “trial” period and “qualifie[s]” as a “regular employee,” he or she then would be considered a “regular employee

Den ex dem. Southard v. Central Railroad

26 N.J.L. 13 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1856

It is no less the dictate of reason and justice, than of sound law, that courts should require the violation of a condition which involves a forfeiture to be clearly established. … If, however, the evidence had • clearly established a breach of the condition and a consequent forfeiture of the estafe, the plaintiff could , not-have availed herself of the forfeiture.

In Re Masiello

25 N.J. 590 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1958

20, 1944 says: "This statement of eligibility is valid until April 20, 1948." *598 However, we have concluded that it is not necessary to pass upon these two issues because in our judgment another ground exists which is clearly … N.J.S.A. 18:3-2( e ). *602 Provision is then made for the establishment of a State Board of Examiners.

Romagnola v. Gillespie, Inc.

194 N.J. 596 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 2, 2008

It explained that “case law pertaining to procedural changes, i.e. rule amendments, clearly establishes that, normally, the rule in effect on the date a judgment or order is *602 entered will govern.” … Few cases should qualify for such special relief; this is one of those rare cases. IV.

Houston v. Traphagen

47 N.J.L. 23 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1885

The first ground taken against this verdict is clearly untenable. … But it failed to establish that inference because the case failed to negative other possible causes, and each expert qualified his testimony by reference to his ignorance of the plaintiff’s condition between the injury and

Rogers v. Colt

21 N.J.L. 704 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1848

There is no other language in the instrument clearly shewing a different intent, by which the natural import of these terms is altered, or their effect qualified. 4. … If so, he clearly erred. The appropriate province of the court and of the jury are totally distinct.

Long v. Township of Union & The Clinton Hill Cemetery Ass'n

79 N.J.L. 70 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 23, 1909

township of Union, county of Union, on March 18th, 1909, entitled “An ordinance granting the .consent and approval of the township committee of the township of Union *71 to the Clinton Hill Cemetery Association, to locate and establish … The testimony clearly shows that the trolley was to offer facilities for transportation to the inhabitants of this section of the township, irrespective of cemetery uses.

Messenger v. Pennsylvania Railroad

37 N.J.L. 531 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1874

The solution of the question must, then, depend upon the nature of the employment and such deductions as follow from the established principles affecting it. … This contract being clearly within it, and odious to the law in the respect on which a recovery is sought, cannot be sustained. But there is an additional ground upon which it is also objectionable.

State v. Sweet

195 N.J. 357 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2008

Dorman are hearsay statements, but that they qualify for admission under the business records exception to that rule. We agree. As State v. … We therefore conclude that the ampoule testing certificates and the breath testing instrument inspection certificates at issue, although clearly hearsay statements, nevertheless qualify for admission into evidence under the