Case law

Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc.

125 N.J.L. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 28, 1940

L. 511, he ruled that, to qualify a medical witness on the question of an increase or decrease of incapacity, he “must know” the employee’s condition at the time of the earlier award, and that, with one exception, the employee … Applying to the evidence the established rule that, where the disability is the product of disease aggravated by accidental injury of the statutory class, it is compensable, the employee has, it seems to me, clearly sustained

In re the Presentment Made to the Superior Court

34 N.J. 378 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 21, 1961

The presentment is immune. It is like the ffiit and run’ motorist. Before application can be made to suppress it, it is the subject of public gossip. The damage is done. … Such reprobation clearly tends to deprive Pierce of his good name and to besmirch his character.

State v. Fuller

182 N.J. 174 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 22, 2004

Strauder established that it is a denial of equal protection for a defendant to be tried before a jury selected from a venire that, by law, excludes members of his or her race “because of color alone, however well qualified … Yet, members of other religions, lacking characteristic names or outward expressions of their faith, appear immune from detection.

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Lambertson

59 N.J.L. 297 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1896

The claim is that upon the evidence given by Lambertson,. he was so clearly guilty of negligence contributing to his injury that the case should have been taken from the jury. … It was not contested that these witnesses were qualified to testify as experts.

Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky

38 N.J. 435 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 19, 1962

The trial judge then set out the heart of his reasoning in denying the motion: "In order to disturb the findings of the jury on the issue of liability it must clearly and convincingly be established that the verdict of the … Weiss, 20 N.J. 258, 262 , the court said: "The right to trial by jury secured by the Constitution does not immunize a jury verdict from nullification in any case where it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict

State v. Cox

128 N.J.L. 108 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 9, 1942

S. 1937, 2 :195-19, unless this taint clearly appears. … The surgeon who performed the autopsy described the latter fracture as the result of a “severe blow” *113 which “could have caused death * * * within a few minutes,” later qualified to “half a minute or a minute.”

State v. Fortin

162 N.J. 517 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 23, 2000

Such a witness is qualified to discuss similarities between crimes without drawing conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. … In cases concerning “signature” crimes, we stated: Evidence Rule 55 [the predecessor to N.J.R.E. 404(b) ] is most easily understood in situations of signature crimes, in which some distinct feature about the two crimes clearly

State v. DeMarco

107 N.J. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1987

As a general rule, a trial court may not order admission over a prosecutor’s objection unless the defendant can establish clearly and convincingly that the objection constitutes a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” … For a court to reverse a prosecutor’s decision, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor’s refusal to sanction admission into the program was based on a patent and gross abuse of discretion

Snyder v. Mekhjian

125 N.J. 328 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 1991

The court also rejected BCBC’s claims to charitable immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and damage limitation under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8. … I perceive that plaintiffs rarely will be able to establish a compelling need and justification for donor information.

Farris v. Farris Engineering Corp.

7 N.J. 487 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1951

This was apparently done to qualify the latter two as directors. … We turn now to the establishment of the partnership in question.

State v. Fox

25 N.J.L. 566 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1856

It materially qualified the opinion Ipreviously expressed by the same learned judge in Mann v. Glover. … The juror challenged is clearly a competent witness to prove any ground of disqualification not involving his personal character.

McCoy v. Overseer of the Poor

37 N.J.L. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1874

It is said that such residence established the legal settlement of the mother. … Why the distinction is made, need not be discussed ; it is sufficient that it is clearly drawn in our statutes. It is also- recognized in two-cases. Overseers of Paterson v. Overseers of Byram, 3 Zab. 395; R ichardsonv.

State v. Ramseur

106 N.J. 123 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1987

valid and adequate to establish that ‘death qualification’ in fact produces juries somewhat more conviction-prone than ‘non-death-qualified’ juries.” 476 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 1764 , 90 L.Ed.2d at 147 . … As noted, Juror M, in response to the court’s initial voir dire, clearly stated that he could in good conscience return a guilt verdict that would lead to death.

Brodsky v. Red Raven Rubber Co.

111 N.J.L. 453 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 27, 1933

And the grounds of appeal are clearly insufficient also in not pointing out the particular error claimed to have been made. State Highway Commission v. Zyk, 105 N. J. L. 156 ; 144 Atl. Rep. 8 . … Assuming, without deciding, that it was incompetent as opinion evidence from a witness not qualified, no such objection was made and appellants cannot raise that point here.

State v. Inhabitants of Trenton

50 N.J.L. 331 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1888

or which may be established, for the police force or police department of such city.” … It was not intended to confer the power, to establish the mode of appointing, for that would conflict with the mode clearly defined in section 17, while a reasonable discretion in declaring what the tenure of the office shall

Matter of Alleged Violations of Law by Valley Road Sewerage Co.

154 N.J. 224 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 1998

The statutory scheme establishes the BPU’s authority to revoke Valley Road’s franchise. … Satisfying those obligations may affect the terms of the sale, including the number of qualified buyers, the conditions of sale, and the sale price.

State v. Rodney Bull(075919)

227 N.J. 555 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 2017

The “so far as possible” qualifier is triggered only when compliance cannot be achieved, as, for example, when the second extended-term sentence is mandatory. Id. at 535. … The defendant’s attempted-escape and weapon-possession offenses clearly were not committed before imposition of the first sentence; rather, they were committed while the defendant was serving his first sentence.

State v. Walker

37 N.J. 208 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1962

It was established that the defendant and Mary Johnson had lived together in Philadelphia prior to the shooting. … J. 550, at 565 (1955), and a verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it is clearly the result of mistake, passion, prejudice or partiality. State v. Forcella, 3 5 N.

Grubb v. Wyckoff

52 N.J. 599 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1968

The recall petition must be signed by qualified voters equal in number to 35% of the registered voters of the municipality, and the petition must set forth a statement of the cause upon which the removal is sought. N. … A. 40:69A — 177, and thus his recall establishes that a majority believe he ought not to continue in his office. But it must be noted that a majority vote does not establish unfitness for office.

Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue

212 N.J. 67 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 13, 2012

immunity. … Clearly, the Commission’s de novo conclusion about the magnitude of Winters’s infraction weighs heavily in our resolution of this appeal.