Case law

Matturri v. Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System

173 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2002

In his view, the term “current” clearly and unambiguously conveys a legislative directive to update (increase) survivors’ benefits as judicial salaries change. … If we mention the current United States President, without qualifying “current,” we are referring to George W. Bush.

Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services

204 N.J. 320 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 10, 2010

Upon the discrete act of discharge, the plaintiff in Roa “clearly knew, or should have known, that he had been the subject of retaliation by defendants, and should have filed his complaint within two years thereof,” despite … However, the discrimination claim cannot be similarly viewed, and is subject to evaluation by established “discovery rule” principles.

State v. Sturdivant

31 N.J. 165 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 23, 1959

We need not discuss the precise reach of that provision since the facts before us are clearly beyond it; there is no suggestion that any of the talesmen sought to be summoned. … In fact, the under-sheriff’s decision to gather jurors from eight large business establishments in the *177 City of Newark was reasonably calculated to reflect the population, urban and suburban.

In Re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law

139 N.J. 323 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 13, 1995

Not only has the seller not retained a lawyer, the only person qualified to explain those risks. … Recognizing that while some estates are clearly simple enough to allow accountants to prepare the return, we noted that others are so complex as clearly to require the use of attorneys, and that some fell in between these

Lynch v. Scheininger

162 N.J. 209 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2000

Negligent conduct is not “immunized by the concept of ‘avoidable consequences.’ … Negligence is clearly relative in reference to the knowledge of the risk of injury to be apprehended.

Coxe v. Robbins

9 N.J.L. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1828

From an examination of this statute it clearly appears that the regulation it contains respecting the liability to answer in damages *in some cases, and in others for [*387 protection and immunity from an action for trespass … immediately preceding, and other parts of the act, which are intended to impose on owners of adjoining improved lands equal shares of the burden of maintaining the partition fences between them, and with the 7th section, which establishes

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.

State v. Albright

20 N.J.L. 644 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1846

Dig. 574, the persons qualified to vote at town meetings, were authorized to “ vote, grant and raise” moneys for township purposes, This act was passed in 1798, and consequently long before we had any common school system … Dig. 578, the town meetings were authorized to “ vote, grant and raise” such sum of money, as the majority should agree upon, for the erection and repairing of school houses and the establishment of free schools.

Gleitman v. Cosgrove

49 N.J. 22 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 1967

But there is no policy favoring the breach of duty here or its immunization. Dor is there any dispute that the Gleitmans could have terminated the pregnancy lawfully outside Dew Jersey, at least in some foreign country. … Should the Legislature differ with any of this, it is of course at liberty to adopt an enactment clearly expressing its wishes and directions.

Middletown Township Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n Local No. 124 v. Township of Middletown

162 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 9, 2000

Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a municipality “where interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate that course.” Gruber v. Mayor and Twp. … At the time of his retirement, Beaver sought to qualify for “special retirement.”

Tidewater Oil Co. v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Carteret

44 N.J. 338 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 1965

It is clearly not enough if the asserted question is only remotely or speciously connected to the constitution by the loose or contrived use of broad constitutional terminology. … The litigant’s attorney may well not be certain whether his case qualifies without the necessity of certifi *344 cation.

First Family Mortgage Corp. v. Durham

108 N.J. 277 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 1987

Clearly, the benefits inuring to the corporation that has not qualified would encourage the continued illegal transaction of business until the violation is discovered.” … But even if plaintiff were not subject to taxation, this would not necessarily mean that it would also be constitutionally immune from application of the reporting requirement, which imposes a lesser burden and hence arguably

Brunell v. Wildwood Crest Police Department

176 N.J. 225 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 2003

For example, a worker who loses a finger due to a malfunctioning machine clearly has suffered an untoward or unexpected event resulting in hurt or loss. That is an accidental injury. … Accordingly, it is possible, depending on the facts adduced at trial, for the claimants to qualify under different sections of the statute, or for one to qualify and not the other.

Curtis v. Aaronson

49 N.J.L. 68 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1886

If a grant by sufficient description clearly ascertains the location of the premises conveyed, it is for the court to see that the grant is applied to the subject matter in accordance with the expressed intention of the parties … In such cases, recitals of fact not made by one in possession as owner and qualifying such possession, not made by an owner against interest, not made by one in the performance under proper authority of some provable act

Shlomo Hyman v. Rosenbaum Yeshiva of North Jersey

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2024

The ministerial exception is clearly not limited to employment decisions made by religious institutions on religious grounds. Ibid. … Those determinations would clearly involve the court in an exploration of Jewish law.

Portner v. Portner

93 N.J. 215 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 31, 1983

We asked how is one to establish with any reasonable precision when an irretrievable breakdown in the marital relationship occurred. … In those cases, there was an actual physical separation, together with an event that clearly indicated that both parties had agreed that the marriage was completely and finally dissolved.

Alm v. Reinhardt

129 N.J.L. 564 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 8, 1943

Defendant’s offer was objected to on the ground that it was not established at the time of the cross-examination of Dr. … The distinction to be made in the instant case is that the testimony that the body of the instrument was not the writing of the witness but of some other person, is clearly equivocal.

Miller v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, Hudson County

10 N.J. 398 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1952

Miller, his widow, qualified as administratrix of Adolph Miller’s estate on June 14, 1949. Herman C. … Thus the present case is clearly within the rule of Ross v.

Eggers v. Kenny

15 N.J. 107 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 29, 1954

The next contention advanced by the plaintiff is that his position as city commissioner renders him immune from interrogation by his fellow commissioners sitting as a committee. … Further in its opinion the court noted that the examination of municipal officers and employees in relation to the performance of their official duties was clearly a legitimate exercise of power vested in the commission under

Ampro Fisheries, Inc. v. Yaskin

127 N.J. 602 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1992

In February 1990, Ampro attacked the regulations, arguing that they violated the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities, and Supremacy Clauses of the federal Constitution; were not reasonably related to the public health and … While statutes in the first group violate the Commerce Clause only if the burdens they impose on interstate trade are “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits,” Pike v.