Case law

City Check Cashing, Inc. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

166 N.J. 49 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2001

The date on the check had clearly been changed from August 8,1994 to July 7, 1994. Santoro asked Slansky to call Chemical Bank and verify the authenticity of the check. … Nat’l Turf Club, supra, 158 N.J.Super. at 203 , 385 A.2d 932 (stating that “although a bank has complied with Uniform Commercial Code provisions, such compliance does not necessarily immunize it from ordinary tort liability

Kansel v. Unemployment Compensation Commission

135 N.J.L. 245 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 25, 1947

Kansel lias been the owner and operator of a printing establishment at 249 West Kinney Street, "Newark, since January 1st, 1912. … S. 43:21-19 (g) is so clearly controlling on the facts developed and in the law as applied in 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 .

New Jersey Southern Railroad v. Chandler

65 N.J.L. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1900

In fact it is so expressly provided by the fifth sec *180 tion of the statute, only qualified by the sixth section, which provides that it shall not be recorded by the clerk in any event until the expiration of fifteen days … The fact that the return was recorded clearly appears by theeertificate of the clerk to the record sent up in answer to this-writ. The fact of the record is not denied by the prosecutor.

Northwest Bergen County Utilities Authority v. Kathleen A. Donovan (075060)

226 N.J. 432 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 15, 2016

The MCUAL renders each commissioner an office holder, entitled to retain office for a specific term and until a successor is qualified. See N.J.S.A. 40:14B-16. … The Legislature clearly recognized circumstances calling for removal of a commissioner short of the completion of one’s term and the appointment *448 of a successor, and it established a safety valve by providing a mechanism

Nolan v. Lee Ho

120 N.J. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 1990

The Appellate Division held that because the discovery rules clearly had been circumvented, the trial court had been correct in vacating the settlement agreements. … Because defendants are not seeking damages, they need establish only equitable fraud, not legal fraud.

62-64 Main Street, L.L.C. v. Mayor of Hackensack

221 N.J. 129 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 23, 2015

As a result, according to H2M, the Main Street property now qualified as an area in need of redevelopment under only three sections of the LRHL, N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(a), (b), and (d), and the Moore Street parking lot now qualified … It found that nine other properties did not qualify.

Palatine I v. Planning Board of the Township of Montville

133 N.J. 546 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 5, 1993

Likewise, the building permit clearly stated that it expired after six months' suspension or abandonment of construction. … In my view, neither Palatine's nor the Court's position is consistent with established principles of equitable estoppel.

Costello v. Ocean County Observer

136 N.J. 594 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1994

Because the privilege does not apply to newly filed complaints, “[a] mere contemplated lawsuit not yet begun is clearly not enough” to trigger the privilege’s protections. Ibid. … Although Costello urges that a fuller investigation was required, failing to investigate more fully “merely establishes possible negligence—it does not establish subjective knowledge of falsity or serious doubt about the

State v. Curry

109 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1987

In fact, the Sanderses themselves initiated litigation to qualify their plan for governmental approval. … However, in this case, the record does not clearly establish the predicate for such policy choices.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Ho-Ho-Kus Borough

47 N.J. 211 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 23, 1966

The educational mission of a regional high school is clearly a "special reason" within the meaning of the statute just cited. Andrews v. Ocean Twp. Board of Adjustment, 30 N.J. 245 (1959). … The substantive question seems to me to fall clearly within the following language from the foundation case of Village of Euclid, Ohio v.

Mortimer v. Board of Review

99 N.J. 393 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1985

Section 19(u), however, did not accord the same *396 exclusivity to the monetary alternative test, since employees qualifying under that standard could not calculate the average weekly wage on the basis of the most recent … However, what the amendment clearly conveys is a disavowal by the Legislature of the method of calculation approved in Schatz with respect to claimants who worked more than 20 base weeks in the base year.

Brady v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission

131 N.J. 594 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 1992

Because the unconstitutional portion of the legislation is clearly severable, we proceed to address the substantive challenges in both appeals. … Of course, the Act qualifies that duty somewhat by adding the sensible condition “to the fullest extent reasonable and when not in conflict with [the Act’s other requirements].” N.J.S.A. 19:46-10(d).

Mimnagh v. Falato

110 N.J.L. 266 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1933

The case is clearly distinguishable from the rule laid down in Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N. J. L. 754. … The record discloses-that the testimony was offered in a qualified fashion and that possibly this housekeeper did render services to another member of the respondent’s family who was ill at the time.

Fischer v. Canario

143 N.J. 235 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 30, 1996

Canario argued that a judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been entered in his favor because the evidence failed to establish that he had a duty to inform Mrs. … A purely prospective application of the Scafidi damage-apportionment rule would clearly frustrate the purpose of that decision.

Chambers v. Hunt

22 N.J.L. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1849

The affirm *555 ative being on the plaintiff, upon the principle already referred to, it followed that he must prove property in himself, absolute or qualified, to the entire chattels, or what, in reference to this plea, … Whether founded on accurate reasoning or otherwise, it is clearly established for law, that the defendant shall have a return, because, as is the reason given, he had the possession, which was illegally taken from him by

Luchejko v. City of Hoboken

207 N.J. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 2011

There is no call to upset the well-established and longstanding difference in the duties imposed on residential versus commercial property owners. … With those principles clearly understood, the panel properly concluded that because the property in issue was used solely for religious purposes it was not “commercial” under Stewart.

White v. Township of North Bergen

77 N.J. 538 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1978

Abandoning the concept of interspousal immunity for torts arising out of negligent automobile operation in Immer v. Risko, 56 N. … When the time came to recognize the injustice of sovereign immunity in denying relief to persons injured by the State’s negligence, we abandoned that long-established principle in Willis v. Department of Cons. & Econ.

Gangemi v. Berry

25 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 1957

This result was confirmed by a statutory recount; and a certificate of election was issued to Beny, who thereupon qualified and assumed charge of the office. … A. 19:57-2, as “any qualified and registered voter of the State who expects to be absent from the State on the day of any election and any qualified and registered voter who will be within the State on the day of any election

State v. Johnson

42 N.J. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 20, 1964

The magistrate, in a written opinion, held the result of the drunkometer test properly admissible since the proofs established that the machine and its components were in order, the operator was qualified and the test property … It is, of course, most essential, in view of the heavy impact the result can have, that proper administration of the test be clearly established before the reading is admitted in evidence.