Case law

Margaret A. Kelly v. Back of Bay Condominium Association, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2026

Finally, plaintiff argues "[m]inisterial acts of the public entity defendants are not shielded by qualified immunity; only discretionary acts can be." … immunity.

Johnny Medina v. Ceasar G. Pitta, M.D.

442 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 2015

Pitta's answer complied with the requirement established by the Supreme Court in Buck v. … Morse was qualified to testify as an expert witness.

75 SPRUCE v. State Board

382 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2005

The State Board is entitled to the immunity conferred by § 3 of the New Jersey Contractual Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 59:13-3, and both cases are hereby dismissed. … The legislative intent in adopting the Charter School Program Act is clearly expressed in § 2: The Legislature finds and declares that the establishment of charter schools as part of this State's program of public education

Stump v. Whibco

314 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 3, 1998

Considerations of sovereign immunity also justified the principle that "the king established his own rules for litigation." … The wire mesh fence clearly did not.

State ex rel. S. Z.

177 N.J. Super. 32 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1981

These are clearly the kinds of motions covered by R. 3:10-3 which should not be considered during trial. … Thus since R. 3:10-3 controls, the motions should clearly not have been considered during trial.

Hillman/Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists

169 N.J. Super. 259 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1979

The Court observed that the purpose of the regulatory statute was patently not to immunize licensed dispensers against legitimate competition, thereby granting them exclusive control of the market. Id. at 231. … A. 52:17B-127, but the regulatory hierarchy specified by the Legislature clearly supports the primacy of consumer interests over the self-interest of the regulated profession.

Puterman v. City of Long Branch

372 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2004

to exercise reasonable care for their safe passage from there to the commercial establishment and back." … These alleged failures to remediate cannot be sufficiently distinguished from snow removal to escape the application of snow removal immunity." Farias v.

State v. Travis

125 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1973

Indeed, the legislative history clearly indicates that "the issue of delegation by that officer would be a question of State law." U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, supra, at 2187. … In such instances it will be the burden of the State to establish that the exercise of the power by a surrogate was necessary and warranted when tested against the aims and purposes of the legislation permitting wiretap intrusions

In Re Vitabile

188 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1983

They assert that the hearing contains all the characteristics of a criminal trial or a grand jury investigation since, among other features, witnesses have a right to counsel, may be granted immunity, and can invoke their … Therefore, it is clearly a part of a criminal action.

Pelose v. Green

222 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1988

That section assumes a nexus between the increased risk and the negligence has already been established — it does not create that nexus. Here, as noted, there was no evidence Dr. … It finds particular application where a failure to diagnose or a misdiagnosis clearly delayed proper treatment, but the resulting harm cannot be quantified.

STATE DEP v. Middlesex Cty. Freeholders Bd.

206 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1985

This language clearly refers to operation of a collection or disposal system in violation of the Act rather than a solid waste management district's failure to properly carry out its planning responsibilities. … Therefore, unless it can seek an injunction to compel a district to establish a resource recovery facility which an approved plan obligates it to establish, DEP would be in the anomolous position of being able to order a

Walsky v. Pascack Valley Hospital

145 N.J. Super. 393 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 18, 1976

As he testified at the trial, unless such were the case their purpose in establishing an association would be frustrated. … The establishment of an undefinable classification for the granting or denial of important economic benefits by those entrusted with fiduciary powers affecting the public's interest clearly violates the public policy of this

Tillberg v. Township of Kearny

103 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 1968

The provisions are in furtherance of the policy established by N.J.S. 2 A :170-54, supra. … Rev. 717 (1954-55) it was said that there was reserved for the future the question whether the rule enunciated in Adler is qualified by the exception suggested in Kurowski.

Brunson v. Rutherford Lodge Number 547

128 N.J. Super. 66 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 1974

With respect to the requirement that such organizations must be organized and operated in "substantial part" for charitable and educational purposes, the following guidelines have been established for interpreting the qualifying … The need for the enactment of a special statute for fraternal organizations clearly shows that social and fraternal purposes do not qualify for exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. See Dover v.

Scerbo v. Bd. of Adjustment of City of Orange

121 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1972

The record before the board of adjustment clearly establishes that the proposed treatment center falls within this definition of a hospital, namely, an institution for the reception and care of sick persons. … Here, both the application and the notice clearly specified the relief which was being applied for.

Orgler v. Orgler

237 N.J. Super. 342 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 29, 1989

The burden of establishing that an asset is immune from equitable distribution "will rest upon the spouse who asserts it." Landwehr v. Landwehr, 111 N.J. 491, 504 (1988), quoting Painter v. … We are satisfied that the remaining contentions raised by both parties are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

NJ Shore Builders v. Mayor

234 N.J. Super. 619 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1989

He testified that new homes use more water than older ones in an effort to establish new lawns and landscaping. … Clearly a moratorium alone would not suffice if there was a health emergency.

Roger Petrocelli v. Miguel E. Bueno

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2026

Div. 1987), plaintiffs could not "establish a dangerous condition existed at the end of the Foschini Park pathway." … When determining whether the subject property qualifies for immunity under the LLA, we must look at the "dominant character of the land." Arias v. Cnty. of Bergen (Arias I), 479 N.J. Super. 268, 288 (App.

Orso v. Goldberg

284 N.J. Super. 446 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 1995

Clearly those statements made by Councilmember Goldberg during a public proceeding were protected by a qualified privilege. Swede, supra, 30 N.J. at 332-34 , 153 A. 2d 36 . … Nonetheless, the court in Dairy Stores, supra, stated: Although we discard the label, we adhere to the principle that to overcome a qualified or conditional privilege, a plaintiff must establish that the publisher knew the

State v. Bassano

67 N.J. Super. 526 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1961

Olsen's written report was offered under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, N.J.S. 2 A :82-35: "A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified … While essentially the case against defendant was circumstantial, the State having offered no direct proof of a corrupt agreement among all three defendants, this, of itself, did not grant defendant immunity from comment for