Case law

Alfonso v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPT. OF LABOR

89 N.J. 41 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 26, 1982

This result is clearly mandated by the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The majority cites Mullane v. … Department of Human Services, Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services: Paga Inmunizar a tu Hijo un Mensaja de Medicade (It Pays to Immunize your Child—A Message from Medicaid) (pamphlet). Medicade— ¿Que Es?

State v. Egan

84 N.J.L. 701 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1913

To convict the defendant of embezzlement four facts must be established by the state to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt — (a) that he was county collector of Hudson county; (5) that he had funds of … I do not know that I can answer the question any more clearly than that. You must consider the case as a whole. You must draw your inference from that one fact, in the light of all the other circumstances in the case.

Independent Dairy Workers Union of Hightstown v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local No. 680

23 N.J. 85 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 17, 1956

2— Is the picketing involved here immune from restraint by virtue of the constitutional right of free speech? Local 680 takes a most unusual position in suggesting that N. J. Const. 1947, Art. … Even in situations where the anti-injunction act is clearly applicable these are proper points of consideration. See N. J. 8. 2.4:15-53 (c).

Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc.

204 N.J. 286 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 2010

The Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 to -11, established a unified theory of recovery for harm caused by products. … A prefabricated home that gave off fumes and sickened its residents, for example, would certainly qualify. See, e.g., Schipper v.

Young v. Stevens

132 N.J.L. 124 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1944

It is well established that having qualified as medical doctors they are competent to testify on all medical subjects upon which they claim sufficient ability to express an opinion. … However, the complaint was clearly broad enough to cover such an allegatiori. There was no error therein.

Levine v. Bochiaro

135 N.J.L. 423 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 21, 1947

During the early hours of the morning of the next day, December 1st, 1945, an explosion of the oil burner occurred for reasons that are not clearly apparent. … The repairs to the oil burner were not in themselves a nuisance, and the evidence clearly reveals that the independent contractor chosen by defendants-appellants was expertly qualified in this -line of work.

Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino

104 N.J. 218 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1986

One court has gone so far as to indicate that it “is unable to understand why the most important element, the contents of the documents, has no Fifth Amendment privilege, but the Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this issue … The privilege against self-incrimination, “although not written into our State Constitution, is firmly established as part of our common law.” State v. Vinegra, 73 N.J. 484, 488 (1977) (citations omitted). See State v.

State v. Lewis

39 N.J.L. 501 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1877

Hence the introduction of the qualifying phrase “as nearly as may be,” which, while it implies a recognition of the fact that absolute certainty is not attainable, does also, in effect, require the commissioners to ascertain … error is in itself entirely unobjectionable, and would, probably, as suggested, be more satisfactory to the tax-payers, and might with propriety, and perhaps with advantage, have been adopted by the commissioners, it is clearly

Engle v. Siegel

74 N.J. 287 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1977

The instruments were admitted to probate October 3, 1973 and Louis Engle, Judith’s father, qualified as executor of both. A common disaster clause appears in each will. … Having predeceased her son and daughter-in-law she could hardly qualify as a recipient under their wills.

Deg, LLC v. Township of Fairfield

198 N.J. 242 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 25, 2009

It does not immunize the use from the requirements of other state laws and regulations. Do-Wop, supra, 168 N.J. at 198 , 773 A2d 706 . … As noted above, if the applicant qualifies, the certificate issues as a matter of right.

State v. Hakum Brown; State v. Rodney Brown

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2021

SOMA requires qualifying sex offenders to wear an electronic ankle bracelet that tracks their movements via global positioning satellite (GPS). Id. at 277. … As the Poritz Court stated, “[l]abels, of course, do not ‘immunize [a law] from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause.’” Poritz, 142 N.J. at 62 (second alteration in original) (quoting Collins v.

Joseph v. Passaic Hospital Ass'n.

26 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 1958

Its Constitution declares its object to be “the establishment, support and management of an institution for the care, cure and nurture of sick and injured persons of any creed, nationality or color,” and the establishment … The requirement of a hearing before “a man fails of reappointment” is quite clearly intended to protect the staff member against arbitrary, capricious and oppressive *569 action involving his professional qualifications,

Romano v. Kimmelman

96 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1984

In order to use breathalyzer test results as evidence in a trial charging a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the State had clearly to establish that (1) the equipment was in proper order— that it was periodically inspected … Under Johnson , conditions of admissibility must be “clearly established.” 42 N.J. at 171 .

Humane Society of the United States v. New Jersey State Fish & Game Council

70 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1976

The trial court’s opinion upheld plaintiffs’ position and ruled that a person otherwise qualified may not statutorily be excluded from appointment to the Eish and Game Council on the grounds that he or she is not either a … While information clearly within the realm of judicial notice should suggest the basis for this distinction, differences between the interests advanced by plaintiffs and those of the Sportmen’s Pederation were clearly established

Heckel v. Cranford Golf Club

97 N.J.L. 538 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1922

Justice Depue (afterwards Chief Justice) stated the law clearly ir the case of Law v. Stokes, 32 N. J. … And when established it cannot, on the one hand, be qualified by the secret instructions of the principal, nor, on the other hand, be enlarged by the unauthorized representations of the agent.” Mr.

State v. Regis

208 N.J. 439 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 14, 2011

Our construction of N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) is thus consonant with established principles of statutory construction. | IV. … This interpretation ignores important language in this sixty-year-old statute; the Legislature qualified its mandate to remain in a single lane with the crucial phrase "as nearly as practicable.”

State v. Close

106 N.J.L. 321 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 3, 1930

The answer of the judges to this question, delivered by Lord Chief Justice Tindal, was that the jury should be instructed that, cto establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time … The testimony clearly indicates it and the jury so found. See, also, State v. James, 96 N. J. L. 132, 152; State v. Noel, 102 Id. 659, 676, 684.

Johnson v. Scaccetti

192 N.J. 256 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 2007

In DiProspero, we clearly understood “displaced fractures” to refer to broken bones. … In summary, we disagree with the Appellate Division and now hold that chipped teeth do not qualify as “displaced fractures” under AICRA.

City of Camden v. Mulford

26 N.J.L. 49 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1856

The ordinance of the common council directing such public improvement is judicial in its nature, and extends immunity from private action for damages to those who perform the duty. In Parks v. … If this be so in point of fact, the plea is clearly good. It was so held in Bergen v. Clarkson, 1 Halst. 352.

Bolton v. Bolton

86 N.J.L. 622 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 16, 1914

Lynde must be restricted or qualified so as to cause it not to overrule the decision in the Barber case. … It may be assumed, so far as tire present- case is concerned, that the courts of' Yew York have the power to annul, vary or modify' a. decree for alimony', with reference to future installments, but it seems to be clearly