Case law

State v. Johnston

79 N.J.L. 49 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 18, 1909

But this line of cases does not establish the inability of the legislature to impose such taxes for revenue, nor its inability to delegate to municipalities the power to impose such taxes. … Eesident owners can he reached by service of process within this state, while nonresident owners, of course, unless by voluntary appearance, are immune from service.

State v. Carey R. Greene State v. Tyleek A. Lewis (082536) (Burlington County and Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2020

The court nevertheless denied admission of Smith’s statement because defendants did not have an opportunity to cross-examine Smith, as required by N.J.R.E. 804(b)(1)(A), and because the State did not establish that defendants … Additionally, the court advised Smith that she had immunity from prosecution and therefore could not invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege, and Smith’s attorney had said that, with immunity, “You can order her to testify

Clark v. Safety-Kleen Corp.

179 N.J. 318 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 8, 2004

in this field is demonstrated by education, training or experience, and that a professional license or degree in medicine is not a prerequisite to establish sufficient knowledge to qualify as an expert. … Indeed, that documentation was made up of the same materials relied on by the defense experts, and plainly established the corrosive effects of cresols on skin. In short, Dr.

Communications Workers of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel

154 N.J. 121 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 11, 1998

The Rule of Ten, although it broadens the pool of qualified applicants, requires appointments to be merit-based. … Moreover, we interpret this one-year limit to begin running at the time that the Commissioner establishes a program. We acknowledge a lack of specificity in the word “establish.”

State, Tp. of Pennsauken v. Schad

160 N.J. 156 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1999

The qualifying term “outside” is undoubtedly the key element of the definition of “sign” under section 126-700.1. … Under that view, defendant’s displays qualify as signs because their message was directed solely outside the buildings.

Stopford v. Boonton Molding Co., Inc.

56 N.J. 169 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1970

At incorporation, Mecom, then owner of the company, acquired all of its stock except a few qualifying shares. … Adoption of the plan was clearly established. Even if there were a jury question on the subject a contrary verdict would be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

State v. Ravotto

169 N.J. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 2001

Furthermore, since our criminal law is to no small extent justified by the assumption of deterrence, the individual’s right to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is … Here, the record does not clearly indicate the ready availability of a Breathalyzer.

State v. Kelly

97 N.J. 178 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1984

First, such general acceptance can be established by the testimony of knowledgeable experts. Second, authoritative scientific literature can be used to establish professional acceptance. … Veronen was clearly highly qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the psychological condition of battered women’s syndrome. Ante at 211.

State v. Deshawn P. Wilson(076609)

227 N.J. 534 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 19, 2017

Defendant also asserted that Rodbart’s affidavit was inadmissible as hearsay and did not qualify as a self- authenticating document. … Here, the defense clearly asserted the correct grounds for its objection at the time the trial court ruled on admission of the map.

Thompson's Express & Storage Co. v. Mount

91 N.J. Eq. 497 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 1920

Reason clearly answers in favor of the exclusion. … T'o this it was answered by the plaintiff that it' is the established doctrine that common carriers cannot secure immunity from liability for their negligence by any sort of stipulation.

In Re the Estate of McFeely

10 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 1952

Clearly Joseph B. McFeely as the personal representative of Bernard N. … Clearly that is not the purpose of a proceeding for the appointment of a substituted administrator.

Phillips v. Gelpke

190 N.J. 580 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 2007

Stated differently, our “system of justice ... has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception!)]” Germann v. … Once competence is established, as it was here, “[t]he extent to which ... testimony [is] to be believed [is] for the jury.” State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 124 , 449 A.2d 1280 (1982).

Allaire's Heirs v. Allaire

39 N.J.L. 113 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1876

In my judgment, it would be clearly an error to admit such an opinion for the consideration of a jury. … The rule is well established that a general objection cannot prevail to evidence which is-good in part.'

In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk

90 N.J. 550 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 1982

They relate to a profession, a specialty in which the parties, the witnesses and the members of the tribunals are all uniquely qualified and share a common expertise. … Polk’s assertions that this evidence was insufficient to establish these charges is also meritless.

Lourdes Medical Center v. Board of Review

197 N.J. 339 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 27, 2009

The new law accomplished that end by requiring employers to accumulate “unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed after qualifying periods of employment.” … Significantly, Lourdes did not have to close down to qualify for a work stoppage.

Moya v. City of New Brunswick

90 N.J. 491 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 1982

In return for his statement, he was given immunity from prosecution for all crimes except the jewelry theft. … That history shows that the language relied on by the Appellate Division in Valerius as clearly restricting the remedy to provision of counsel in advance (allowing reimbursement only upon acquittal of charges brought by the

State v. Kirby Lenihan (071497)

219 N.J. 251 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 18, 2014

Defendant argues that a violation of the Seat Belt Law, therefore, does not qualify as a predicate offense for N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18b. … Defendant notes that such a law clearly protects public health and safety.

Estate of Frankl v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

181 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2004

Goodyear had the burden of establishing the confidentiality of the disputed items on any such motion to the court. … Among the questions the Committee should address are the following: Whether unfiled discovery should be immune from public access, presumptively immune, or accessible on the same terms as filed discovery; if accessible, how

J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Gunn

67 N.J.L. 591 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1902

I think as to those the right of the plaintiffs to recover has been established.” … Instead of a qualified refusal, there was an absolute direction for such a recovery. For this reason there must be a reversal of the judgment, and a venire de novo. For affirmance — None.

Muhammad v. New Jersey Transit

176 N.J. 185 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2003

In the findings and declarations section of the Public Transportation Act, which established NJT, the Legislature found that [a]s a matter of public policy, it is the responsibility of the State to establish and provide for … S & W clearly was an independent contractor of NJT.