Case law

Vornado, Inc. v. Hyland

77 N.J. 347 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 18, 1978

But the second proposition is qualified by limitations which compound the difficulties of one who assails the legislative decision. … If the classification bore “some relation” to the legislative objective of relief from interference with Sunday rest and relaxation, it was immune from invalidation through judicial admeasurement of a supposed preponderant

M.S. v. Millburn Police Department

197 N.J. 236 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 23, 2008

The court, however, noted that under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f) the Prosecutor’s Office still could move to revoke plaintiffs firearms card if plaintiff currently “ ‘no longer qualifies’ ” for such a permit. C. … The term “complaint” in the statute clearly refers to a criminal, not a domestic violence, complaint.

State v. Toliver

180 N.J. 164 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 21, 2004

After we issued our decision in Fortin II, codefendants moved for dismissal of the aggravating factors, and for further relief requiring grand jurors to be death qualified, allowing defense counsel to be involved in that … The purposes of the grand jury are to “determine whether the State has established a prima facie case that a crime has been committed and that the accused has committed it.” State v.

Mulhearn v. Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.

2 N.J. 356 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1949

The term of each of these officers is for the term of the Governor appointing him and until his successor is appointed and has qualified, idem. … Ct. 1941), where the opinion uses the word “courts” but the context clearly shows that tribunals or some similar term was intended.

City of Philadelphia v. STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRON. PROTEC.

73 N.J. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1977

The intent of Congress to leave this power with the several states, insofar as the disposal of non-hazardous waste is concerned, is clearly manifest. … It is clearly established that potential federal regulation of a subject matter by a federal agency does not preempt present regulation by the states. Welch Co. v. New Hampshire, 306 U. S. 79, 84-85 , 59 S.

Bowler v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of NY

53 N.J. 313 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1969

If because of the physical condition, gainful employment cannot be obtained or performed, total disability is established. … Moreover, the facts establish another independently adequate ground for such an estoppel.

Market Street Mission v. Bureau of Rooming & Boarding House Standards

110 N.J. 335 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 19, 1988

It cannot be doubted that religious institutions do not enjoy an absolute immunity from worldly burdens. Prince v. … The establishment clause proscribes excessive entanglement and permits only minor and unobtrusive State supervision of religiously oriented affairs.

Frank v. Frank's Inc.

9 N.J. 218 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 31, 1952

It is the absence of fraud as to the plaintiff that most clearly distinguishes the case at bar from the Telis case. In the circumstances of this case, there is no justification for attacking the corporate structure. … To do so would not only unsettle the established business practice of using corporations for legitimate purposes but might also jeopardize the rights of creditors.

DeRienzo v. Morristown Airport Corp.

28 N.J. 231 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 17, 1958

We cannot agree with this reasoning because there was other evidence which clearly and impressively supported plaintiff’s contentions as to the cause of the accident. … motion for dismissal: “* * * The question is whether the trier of the facts could, on any reasonable view of the evidence, rejecting all evidence and inferences unfavorable to the plaintiff, find that the plaintiff had established

State v. Inhabitants of Trenton

53 N.J.L. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1890

It is obvious, therefore, that a chartered right to hold and use property does not ipso facto carry with it any immunity from police regulation. … A rule of construction to be applied is, that when an ■ordinance is passed upon a matter clearly within a general power, the presumption is in favor of its- reasonableness.

Phillips v. Curiale

128 N.J. 608 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 1992

conflicting policies that have resulted from * * * the elimination of immunity for members of the military.” … Those principles of legislative power to establish new regimes of recovery or to abolish existing rights have been held applicable in a wide variety of circumstances.

Found v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

232 N.J. 543 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 18, 2018

, shall be capable of being elected into any Office of Profit or Trust, or being a Member of either Branch of the Legislature, & shall fully & freely enjoy every Privilege & Immunity enjoyed by others their Fellow-Subjects … concerns" could not "qualify as compelling."

New Jersey Title Insurance v. Caputo

163 N.J. 143 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 22, 2000

times the allowable amount and, in fact, on nine occasions, Caputo met or exceeded the allowable weekly total in just one day, no explanation was offered for failure to file any such report, even though this omission could clearly … It is not established by negligent or careless conduct or by vague suspicion. Likewise, actual knowledge of and complicity in the fiduciary’s misdeeds is not required.

Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield

17 N.J. 67 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 13, 1954

Austin, supra , the first alternative is clearly preferable. … If it is not a qualifying phrase, what meaning can it have?

Schireson v. State Board of Medical Examiners

129 N.J.L. 203 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 19, 1942

The circumstance that the prosecutor had already been licensed gave him no immunity against such legislation. Lawrence v. Briry (Mass.), 132 N. E. Rep. 174. … That clearly was not the requirement or the intent of the statute and was not made necessary by any provision of the federal or of our state constitution.

Alderiso v. Medical Center of Ocean County, Inc.

167 N.J. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 9, 2001

We first consider whether the date on which plaintiff received oral notice of her termination qualifies as the date of discharge. … The tribunal’s conclusion in that regard was not based on credibility determinations, but rather represents an evaluation of an underlying fact, which is clearly reviewable by an appellate court.

Dewey Land Co. v. Stevens

83 N.J. Eq. 656 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1914

Clearly, this *661 intimates that something is lost and says that something is not lost. What is it that is, and what is it that is not, lost ? … A practical working system is necessary for the good of all, and where such a system has been established its fairness must be more than questioned, in fact, must be clearly overthrown, before the courts will feel justified

A.B. v. S.E.W.

175 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 2003

To prevent endless re-litigation of settled eases, new developments in case law generally do not qualify as “ ‘an extraordinary circumstance’ as to justify relief from a final judgment^]” Hartford Ins. Co. v. … Briefly stated, “[prospective application is appropriate when a decision establishes a new principle of law by overruling past precedent or by deciding an issue of first impression.” Montells v.

Foley v. Home Rubber Co.

89 N.J.L. 474 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 1917

Rep. 264 , that the accident, established b3 the evidence, arose out of the employment, and reversed the judgment. *477 For the respondent it is contended that the accident did not arise oat of the employment, in that the … We think the present ease is clearly distinguishable from the cases cited.

State v. GC

188 N.J. 118 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2006

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. … The court's decision may be disturbed only if it clearly lacks support in the record. In re R.R., supra, 79 N.J. at 113, 398 A. 2d 76 .