Case law

Morgan v. Susino Construction Co.

130 N.J.L. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 17, 1943

The testimony concerning these declarations was clearly hearsay. The declarations cannot be justified as admissions against interest because Jordan is not a party to this case. … By his declaration of paternity he establishes himself as related by blood to the child, but that relationship is not established as fact unless and until the testimony offered is actually received in evidence.

State v. Otis Elevator Co.

12 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 1953

The Congress alone may waive or qualify the immunity of the national government from a judgment for costs. Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272 , 13 L. Ed. 693 (1850); United States v. Worley, 281 U. S. 339 , 50 S. … Even without sovereign immunity, the “fund in court” doctrine would not entitle the custodian here to a counsel fee.

Leech v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad

113 N.J.L. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 2, 1934

But the motion was too broad, as it included all the testimony, and some of it at least, viz., that relating to objective symptoms, was clearly competent. … Passing this, the objections argued are that the testimony established no standard of construction, and that the witness was not qualified as an expert.

Smith v. Oxford Iron Co.

42 N.J.L. 467 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1880

The general rule which gives immunity to-the superior, results from considerations of justice, as well as of policy. … It is clearly shown that it was a highly-dangerous explosive, and that the- *475 proper manner of using it was not made known to the plaintiff, although printed instructions were in the possession of the company.

Matter of Will of Adair

149 N.J. 591 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1997

Adair's executors elected to qualify that trust as a "qualified terminable interest property" (QTIP) under I.R.C. § 2056(b)(7). That election deferred the tax on the trust until Mrs. Adair's death. Mrs. … Section 2056(b)(7)(B)(i) of the Code defines "qualified interest trust property" as property 1) passing from a decedent to a surviving spouse, 2) in which the surviving spouse has a qualified interest for life, and 3) for

Buchanan v. Buchanan

75 N.J. Eq. 274 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 9, 1909

Such suits can be maintained only by the qualified personal representatives of the deceased. … Blunt, supra, it clearly appeared in a suit by a creditor of a decedent that the defendant was in possession, through a sale made by himself under a claim of ownership, of the proceeds of all the property of which his uncle

Maressa v. New Jersey Monthly

89 N.J. 176 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1982

This litany of protected activities was clearly intended to afford complete and pervasive security against disclosure. … An absolute Shield Law privilege gives newspersons less than absolute immunity from suit.

Unemployed-Employed Council of New Jersey, Inc. v. Horn

85 N.J. 646 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 22, 1981

II The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) was established by L.1978, e. 67, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 et seq., to be effective on January 6, 1979. … Therefore, it is clearly to be regarded as the “head of the agency” within the terms and intendment of the exclusionary provision of N.J.S.A. 52:14F-8(b).

State v. Doliner

96 N.J. 236 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 31, 1984

the likelihood that any offense has been committed, see In re Addonizio, 53 N.J. 107, 124-27 (1968); *250 they may grant the witness immunity and use the court’s contempt power to force compliance with the immunity order … We find those policies clearly met with respect to defendants’ records, which they seek to have returned without affording government investigators access.

Stern v. Stern

66 N.J. 340 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1975

Once it is established that the books of the firm are well kept and that the value of partners’ interests are in fact periodically and carefully reviewed, then the presumption to which we have referred should be subject to … These now customary usages of the concept of vesting are clearly in no way relevant to the question of effecting an equitable distribution upon the occasion of a divorce.

State v. Alexander

233 N.J. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 30, 2018

The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice provides that an offense is a lesser-included offense if: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged … N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(d)(3), and must be established by proof of more facts than those needed to establish "bodily injury," cf. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(d)(1).

Matter of Jobes

108 N.J. 394 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1987

If a once-competent patient in a persistent vegetative state has not clearly expressed his or her wishes about the termination of treatment, his or her family is remitted to the substituted-judgment approach. … Hospitals that cannot afford or attract a bio-ethicist could, nonetheless, authorize the establishment of an ethics committee.

Schwartz v. Essex County Board of Taxation

129 N.J.L. 129 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 30, 1942

Gooley on Constitutional Limitations (4th ed.) 646-647, ch. 14. *132 Lastly, the argument is advanced that the prosecutor is precluded from prosecuting the writ of certiorari granted to him under the well-established rule … The depositions taken by rule of the court indicate clearly that persons and corporations engaged in the business of storing goods for hire in warehouses were unable to compete profitably with competitors in the neighboring

Siccardi v. State

59 N.J. 545 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 13, 1971

One whose life is in real danger, as evidenced by serious threats or earlier attacks, may perhaps qualify within the latter category but one whose concern is with the safety of his property, protectible by other means, clearly … may not so qualify.

Seidman v. Clifton Savings Bank

205 N.J. 150 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 2011

It concluded that the 2005 Plan “does establish a community of interest between the shareholders and the Board of Directors.” … Under the rule, when business judgments are made in good faith based on reasonable business knowledge, the decision makers are immune from liability from actions brought by others who have an interest in the business entity

Senna v. Walter Florimont & 2400 Amusements, Inc.

196 N.J. 469 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 2008

The article clearly suggested that Sisler improperly benefited from insider dealing. See id. at 260, 275 , 516 A.2d 1083 . … In a case involving the negligence standard, proof of fault must be established only by a preponderance of the evidence. Kass v.

Menger v. Laur

55 N.J.L. 205 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1893

The earliest case in which the doctrine of contributory negligence as a bar to an action was clearly expressed is Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60, decided in 1809. … When the direct and immediate cause of damage is clearly proved to be the fault of the defendant, contributory negligence by the plaintiff cannot be established merely by showing that if those in charge of the ship had, in

Btd-1996 NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.

170 N.J. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 2001

Implementing its statutory authority, RTC had adopted a policy concerning payment of state and local taxes that provides in part: The Corporation is immune from taxes other than ad valorem real property taxes. … property are generally in the nature of excise taxes which are levied on the transaction and not on the property (although the calculation of the amount of tax may be based on the property’s sale price); the Corporation is immune

State ex rel. J.A.

195 N.J. 324 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2008

Clearly, “in many, if not most, instances precise contemporaneity is not possible, and hence a slight lapse [in time] is allowable.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(c) advisory committee’s note. … We recognize, however, that a statement inadmissible as a present sense impression may qualify as an excited utterance. B.

Vaughn v. Hankinson's Administrator

35 N.J.L. 79 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1871

Hankinson was duly qualified to practice medicine in this state. Unless thus qualified, every act which goes to make up the charge of this bill was a violation of law. … I think these citations will clearly show that the doctrine is quite established that a naked payment on an open account consisting of a number of items, which, it does not appear, have before been brought to the notice of