Case law

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.

State v. Gilmore

103 N.J. 508 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 16, 1986

This explanation hence does not qualify as a trial-related reason that would rebut the showing of presumed group bias. … For, whatever the criteria for deciding such questions, Blacks clearly constitute a cognizable group. Cf. McCray v.

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

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.

Pratico v. Rhodes

17 N.J. 328 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1955

S. 2A :152-7 is applicable since clearly the moneys were seized by the police “in connection with any arrest for violation of or conspiracy to violate any gambling law of this state.” … It was and is to establish a rule of evidence, by a prima faaie presumption to be used in the trial of the claim of property created by the act.

Campbell Soup Co. v. BD. OF REVIEW, DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

13 N.J. 431 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 2, 1953

The union did not protest his pensioning off under the duly established grievance machinery. The claimant sought other employment without success.” … of the citizens of this state requires the enactment of this measure, under the police powers of the state, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed after qualifying

New Jersey Democratic Party, Inc. v. Samson

175 N.J. 178 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 8, 2002

Rev.Code Ann. § 29.18.160 (West 2002). 4 ] That other state legislatures have spoken clearly on this question 5 highlights the lack of a legislative declaration in the New Jersey *193 statute. … Unlike the legislatures of our sister states that have clearly expressed the consequences that follow when a vacancy *194 occurs outside of the statutory period, New Jersey has not specifically addressed the issue.

Linda Cowley v. Virtua Health System (081891) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 2020

This Court has established that “[i]n most . . . cases, expert testimony will be required to establish both a standard of care and breach of that standard by the defendant, and a plaintiff who fails to present testimony … “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity: to be let alone.” [In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 346 (1985) (quoting Union Pac. Ry. Co. v.

Maisonave v. Newark Bears Professional Baseball Club, Inc.

185 N.J. 70 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 13, 2005

We have held that “New Jersey tolerates immunities only for important reasons of public policy and in relatively exceptional situations, and therefore strongly endorses a standard of care based on ordinary negligence.” … In the dissent’s view, clearly, a decision tethered in “either law or proper public policy,” post at 98, would relieve the stadium owner, who is in the best position to protect its patrons, of any responsibility anywhere

Bott v. Wurts

63 N.J.L. 289 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1899

The mode by which amendments are to be made under it is clearly defined. It has said that certain acts are to be done, certain requisitions are to be observed, before a change can be effected. … electors who attempted to vote, and the rejected ballots may all have been official ballots cast by some of these qualified electors, still it may be that not all of those qualified electors voted, in the constitutional

State v. Karpowitz

98 N.J.L. 546 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1923

. *549 To justify a court in setting aside in a civil case a verdict of a jury on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence, it must so clearly appear as to give rise to the inference that it is the result … These cases establish that it is the province of a jury to pass upon -the questions of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony.

State v. Kemp

195 N.J. 136 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 2008

and that t]he contents of the statement are clearly relevant to this case on several issues. … Defense counsel made his point clearly: “Judge, just to clarify.

Stevenson v. Mayor of Bridgeton

123 N.J.L. 219 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 1939

He took the qualifying oath and filed a bond. His term was fixed at three years, which would seem to be in contravention of B. 8. 40 ¡46-6.1, above mentioned. … McKelvey, Ibid. 621, clearly express the views of this court in passing upon the question of the constitutionality of acts of the legislature like the one under review.

Earl v. Winne

14 N.J. 119 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 14, 1953

Such libels are clearly indictable under the common law, our Constitution and R. S. 2:146-1. … Respondent on the other hand contends that a prosecutor, being an officer of the law, has an absolute immunity from such suits.

LM v. State, Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Serv.

140 N.J. 480 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 7, 1995

On that same date, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that reflected the provisions of the agreement. … Marx, 265 N.J.Super. 418, 425 , 627 A.2d 691 (Ch.Div.1993) (“Under New Jersey law, pensions are clearly subject to equitable distribution.”); Ryan v.

Smith v. Penta

81 N.J. 65 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 1979

But at that time, she points out, she might not have known who all of the candidates were to be, because someone might qualify as a nominee during the ensuing ten-day period. … Crossovers and independents will not wish to commit themselves to one party until the candidates are clearly identified.” Developments, supra, 88 Harv.L.Rev. at 1169.

Greenan v. Braca

18 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 18, 1955

“It needs no argument to establish that, if an unqualified voter casts his ballot, it has the effect to impair the value of the vote of a duly qualified voter.” In re Freeholders of Hudson County, 105 N. J. … In light of the high significance attached to the function, it is regrettable that the duties of the officials charged with its performance are not more clearly spelled out in the statutes.

Taylor v. Woodward

10 N.J.L. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 1828

There is no principle better established says Chancellor Kent, Murray v. Lylbura, (2 Jno. C. … The report here intended is clearly that which may lie accepted by the court, and made the foundation of their judgment.

Mazza v. Board of Trustees

143 N.J. 22 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 18, 1995

To qualify for accidental disability, a member of the Police and Firemen's Retirement System must satisfy three requirements. N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(1). … It is undisputed that Mazza has established the second and third requirements.

Matter of Vey

124 N.J. 534 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 11, 1991

Next, the employer must establish that the particular trait or characteristic is an important element of work behavior. … The agency’s own standard disqualifies a candidate for being “unfit,” not for failing to be the best qualified for the job. For example, an evaluator may find that an applicant is impulsive.