Case law

Brady v. Board of Review

152 N.J. 197 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 22, 1997

“good cause” and thus were qualified for unemployment benefits. … Under the plan, qualified workers fell into two categories.

State v. Tune

17 N.J. 100 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1954

. *109 At the argument of this motion the defense was apprized categorically of the fact "that the evidence clearly indicated that there was sodomy connected with the case." … We perceive that the only purpose was to have the jury hear the witness' answers clearly when it was evident that the witness was not making himself heard and the jurors had difficulty in hearing him.

Rothman v. Rothman

65 N.J. 219 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1974

The husband was held to have acquired a vested right immune from the effect of such legislation. … the desired end. 6 The suggestion has been offered that in undertaking to effect an equitable distribution of marital assets, the trial court should, to establish a starting point, presumptively assign some proportion, generally

Makwinski v. State

76 N.J. 87 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 9, 1978

The plain and unambiguous language of this-statute requires honorable service only during the 25 years of service which (providing the age requirement is also met) qualifies the applicant for a pension. … A. 43:11-1 would clearly prohibit denial of a pension for “any” regulation violation occurring after honorable service for the requisite number of years to earn a pension, the latter section appears to evince a general legislative

Shim v. Rutgers-The State University

191 N.J. 374 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 2007

Rutgers received that letter on August 11, 2003 and, the very next day, responded to plaintiff, acknowledged receipt of the letter and clearly explained that plaintiff had not met the legal requirements to claim in-state … Therefore, as a threshold matter, plaintiff does not qualify for in-state tuition status under N.J.S.A. 18A:62-4 III.

McClellan v. F. A. North Co.

14 N.J. Misc. 760 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 2, 1936

Therefore the question of damages, so far as it has not been settled by any judgment, is clearly open to litigation in the present action. … These facts are clearly sufficient to indicate that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the value of the piano. The plaintiffs must prove their actual damage.

JEN ELECTRIC, INC. v. County of Essex

197 N.J. 627 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 4, 2009

The first addendum issued by the County required that any proposed equal, alternate products be pre-qualified, a requirement that also drew a sharp objection from plaintiff. … By a letter dated December 27, 2007, plaintiff stated its position clearly: “it is apparent that [the bid specifications] have been re-written in a manner that clearly favors a particular sole source vendor to supply all

Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd.

89 N.J. 451 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 27, 1982

I The First Amendment right of freedom of the press does not immunize a publisher from liability for printing and disseminating libelous statements. … Amant does not stand for the proposition that libel defendants have immunity so long as they testify that they believed what they wrote was true.

Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

170 N.J. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2002

Clearly, much remains to be done. Nonetheless, we sharply disagree with our dissenting colleague regarding the progress made in the development and implementation of the Abbott preschool programs. … Additional funding, when appropriate for community providers, will help them to retain qualified teachers, but it will not increase the pool of qualified teachers. 7 D. The Role of Assessment!

Haven Homes, Inc. v. Raritan Township

19 N.J. 239 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1955

It is said that intention is manifested by acts and the “filing of a map with streets, but not water mains, cannot establish a dedication of water mains.” … In an early case in this State, Chancellor Zabriskie declared that “laying out land in lots and streets clearly marked as such, and selling lots bounded on such streets without any qualification, must, both upon principle

Kansel v. U.C.C. of N.J.

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

Kansel has been the owner and operator of a printing establishment at 249 West Kinney Street, Newark, since January 1st, 1942. … And the terms `part of' and `usual trade,' occupation, profession, or business qualify the precedent phase `for any employment,' and together they express the quality of the relationship.

State v. Brown

138 N.J. 481 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 1994

Although the incorporation of defense counsel’s questions into those asked by the court can help secure an adequately qualified jury, the mere fact that defense counsel asked questions does not establish the adequacy of voir … The defendant was found guilty by an inadequately death-qualified jury — indeed, a jury that defense counsel declined to death-qualify at all, allegedly pursuing a “strategy” of avoiding any reference to the death penalty

Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Glaser

70 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 8, 1976

The evidence here clearly establishes a prima facie case of removal of domicile from New Jersey to Virginia after the death of decedent's husband. … It holds that a trial type hearing had not been held by the Division of Taxation. [1] Yet, the record clearly demonstrates that it had.

Matter of Simeone

108 N.J. 515 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 9, 1987

Yet, because, in our view, the proofs fall short of establishing a knowing misappropriation of funds, we accept the DRB’s recommendation of discipline. … Respondent qualified as executor of the Schleuter estate in March 1981. He was then a suspended attorney and purported to act only as executor.

Smith v. Burnet

35 N.J. Eq. 314 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1882

It was insisted that Oliver, the testator, had given this *318 stock to the executor, who was his son, and the establishment of the gift became the objective point of the testimony taken before the orphans court. … restriction upon the body of the act was modified so as to permit a party suing or being sued in a representative capacity to offer himself as a witness, and if he should do so, then the opposite party, by this act, became qualified

State v. Tischio

107 N.J. 504 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1987

An enormous amount of research has clearly established that driving is significantly impaired at blood-alcohol levels well below .15%: Most persons are impaired at 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration, and it is generally … The Court held that before admitting breathalyzer test results into evidence the State must clearly establish that (1) the equipment was in proper working order; (2) the operator was qualified to administer the test; and

Ran-Dav's County Kosher, Inc. v. State

129 N.J. 141 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 22, 1992

The Attorney General concedes that it is neither realistic nor accurate to view the laws of kashrut as being immune from dispute. … In addition, as earlier noted, the Chief of the Bureau of Kosher Enforcement and the entire Advisory Committee are rabbis, individuals qualified under Judaic law to interpret the laws of kashrut.

Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp.

165 N.J. 94 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 2000

The Legislature balanced the plaintiffs advantage of not having to show reliance with the defendant’s advantage of being immune from liability to anyone out of privity. … No one piece of information survives clearly enough that the share price can be said to have passed it on clearly.

Brady v. Department of Personnel

149 N.J. 244 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 1997

Candidates first take the written portion, which lasts for three hours, and those who exceed a particular score then qualify to take the oral portion, although scoring highly enough on the written part to proceed to the oral … After reviewing your responses in light of the guidelines and parameters established, we conclude that your assigned scores are accurate.

Borteck v. RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER

179 N.J. 246 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 2004

It is clearly a restrictive covenant, with substantial financial disincentives, cloaked as a retirement agreement. [Id, at 142-43, 734 A.2d 808 .] … Additionally, defendant contends, and plaintiff does not dispute, that by dovetailing the agreement with other retirement plans established under Internal Revenue Service rules, a qualifying partner can receive payments over