Case law

Seidel v. Peschkaw

27 N.J.L. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1859

. *430 He has not the immunities of an ambassador, but in civil and in criminal cases is subject to the local laws, in the same manner as other foreign residents owing temporary allegiance to the state to which he is accredited … Their compensation is by salary, paid by the United States, or by fees, according to the rates established by act of congress.

Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

96 N.J. 419 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1984

have relied, * * * or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed * ’ *. … litigants may have relied * * * or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.”

Toomey v. McCaffrey

116 N.J.L. 364 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 16, 1936

The town of West New York was incorporated under the statute of 1895, “An act for the formation, establishment and government of towns (Comp. … The statute in question clearly embraced those' who hold an office or position that legally existed.

Reilly v. Ozzard

33 N.J. 529 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 5, 1960

Rather it establishes the framework of government with such specific restraints as are thought to be of eternal, value and hence worthy of immunity from passing differences of opinion. … The Legislature alone may determine the duties and the interrelation of the public posts it establishes or authorizes to be established.

State v. Jarrett Parker (068966)

216 N.J. 408 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 15, 2014

Despite the assertions by the State and amicus to the contrary, the assistant prosecutor clearly used defendant’s use of a false 19 name for the purpose of establishing defendant’s character … That is, whether the error is “clearly capable of producing an unjust result.” R. 2:10-2.

Robbiani v. Burke

77 N.J. 383 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 1978

Such lunches shall meet minimum nutritional standards established by the, Department of Education. Free and reduced price lunches shall be offered to all children qualifying under Statewide eligibility criteria. [N. … That choice is not demonstrated to be clearly an unreasonable one for the stated purpose.

Beam v. Kent

3 N.J. 210 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 5, 1949

The defendant then moved to strike out all of that testimony, including matters clearly not hearsay. … “The rule is established that counsel cannot take the chance of testimony making in his favor, and if it happens to be adverse, then interpose his objection.

State v. JQ

130 N.J. 554 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 6, 1993

As courts and counsel proceed further from that clearly admissible end of the spectrum, they must focus on the research basis for the proposition that the expert witness seeks to establish. … If qualified, the witness should then establish at a minimum that the methodology used to form his or her opinion is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community to establish the proposition to be stated by

Gore v. United States Steel Corp.

15 N.J. 301 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 3, 1954

the course of its opinion the court suggested that reasons for declining jurisdiction “might be successfully advanced in cases between citizens of our state” and expressed the broad view that “where the ends of justice clearly … It is only in those exceptional cases where a weighing of all of the many relevant factors, of which residence is but part, decisively establishes that there is available another forum where trial will best serve the convenience

Rutgers Chapter of Delta Upsilon Fraternity v. City of New Brunswick

129 N.J.L. 238 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1942

This qualifying clause is a proviso or exception definitive of the scope of the exemption granted by the section, and the provisions are therefore inseparable. … It is the established rule that if a proviso in a statute be directly contrary to the purview, the proviso is good, and not the purview, since the former gives expression to the later intention of the legislature.

Bauer v. Nesbitt

198 N.J. 601 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2009

with immunity from liability for negligence—except as defined in the Act. … Our decision in no way weakens our ease law concerning the duty of care governing commercial establishments.

Reimann v. Monmouth Consolidated Water Co.

9 N.J. 134 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 14, 1952

Instead I will limit myself to citing a very recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals and a decision of the United States Supreme Court illustrating most clearly the process of the growth of the common law. … the council, an immunity which exists at common law.

State v. Treficanto

106 N.J.L. 344 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 20, 1929

All these facts are clearly to be spelled out of the testimony of Laura Smith, Mary Brennan, Harrison F. Martland, Thomas O’Mara, William A. … State, and he went on to say, at page 185: “As observed by the learned judge in the Martin case, this rule should be applied with caution, that no undue or dangerous immunity or license be given to crime by persons whose

Mayor of Rahway v. Crowell

40 N.J.L. 207 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1878

The rule clearly is, that, in such cases, the obligation by intendment will be confined to the official term about to commence, or current at the time such bond comes into existence. … , until the corporation can elect another and cause him to be qualified.

McCartin v. Surviving Executors of McCartin

45 N.J. Eq. 265 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1889

To this extent the act of 1880 modified the earlier law, the-alteration being to partially qualify each party without reference-to the action of the other. … In the absence of a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, it extends to those cases only which are within the purview of the statute.”

Sellers v. Philip's Barber Shop

46 N.J. 340 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 1966

Instead of doing so, he says, the Legislature listed the business establishments which were to be considered as within the category. … If his competence does not extend that far, he lacks the legislatively established qualifications for license.

In Re Application of Plainfield-Union Water Co.

11 N.J. 382 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 1953

Self-crimination is rejected as a ground for refusing to testify, but the witness is accorded immunity from prosecution or punishment or the imposition of a penalty or forfeiture in regard to the subject matter of his testimony … The orderly functioning of the process of review requires that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted be “clearly disclosed. and adequately sustained.” Securities and Exchange Commission v.

Attorney General ex rel. Bailey v. Moore's Executors

19 N.J. Eq. 503 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1868

It was very clearly and shortly laid down by Mr. … He-knew of their men and women qualified for that department of labor.

Community Hospital Group, Inc. v. More

183 N.J. 36 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 2005

the public’s access to other qualified neurosurgeons within that area. … JFK contends that the reference in those provisions to "one” year is clearly a typographical error. Dr. More does not concede that these covenants have a two-year duration.

State v. Moore

122 N.J. 420 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1991

In later cross-examination the prosecutor questioned whether defendant’s consciousness of guilt, as shown by his concealment of the evidence, clearly established that he had consciously killed: Q. … We find no need to present these photographs as proofs to establish that factor, but they are clearly relevant to the c(4)(c) factor. See infra at 474-478, 585 A.2d 891 -894.