Case law

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.

In re Individual Health Coverage Program Final Administrative Orders Nos. 96-01 & 96-22

302 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1997

First Option, having received a certificate of authority under the IHC Act, is clearly a member whether or not it chose to issue any one or more of the five authorized individual health benefits plans. … We reject as well the contentions that the IHC Act is unconstitutional as applied by the IHC Board to State licensed but non-federally qualified HMO’s.

Review v. Barnert Memorial Hospital

273 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1994

(b) This section sets forth minimum qualification criteria far utilization review organizations, prescribes the qualification procedure, and establishes a method for financing organizations which qualify. … State-qualified UROs were established “to ensure that the hospital services which are provided are appropriate, necessary, and of high quality.” N.J.A.C. 8:31B — 3.76(a).

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

Township of Princeton v. Bardin

147 N.J. Super. 557 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 1977

Such an objective clearly fulfills the "logical and reasonable basis" aspect of the General Electric standard. … The Legislature has spoken clearly in the act in favor of including within the State's definition of nonprofit organization the federal income taxation definition under § 501(c) (3).

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.

Ar Criscuolo & Assoc., Inc. v. Nj Dept. of Envir. Protection

249 N.J. Super. 290 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1991

The Corps was again contacted to confirm that the project still qualified under Nationwide Permit # 26. … As to the exemption, DEP merely stated that the project "clearly does not fall within the class of exempted projects...." This appeal followed.

Jeannette Andreula v. the Board of Education of the Township of Nutley

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 26, 2024

We note the court further granted the Board's motion to dismiss finding qualified immunity shielded "the Board and its members" from liability under the NJLAD. We disagree. … Therefore, qualified immunity is not afforded. Individual Liability N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a) prohibits unlawful discrimination only by an "employer."

Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hanna

316 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 1998

Clearly, defendant Hanna knew that his driver's license and, thus, his driving privileges were suspended. … its servicing carriers, to ascertain whether the applicant meets the qualifying provisions of the statute.

R.S. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and Union County Board of Social Services

434 N.J. Super. 250 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2014

See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.1 to -2.16 (establishing application process); N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.1 to -3.16 (establishing eligibility factors). … The record clearly supports the Board's calculation of D.S.'

State v. Baynes

287 N.J. Super. 467 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 25, 1995

Specifically, "a defendant must `clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into [a PTI] program was based on a patent and gross abuse of his discretion ' before a court [can] suspend … appears that the policy enunciated by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office concerning "stern punishment" for school zone offenses is not consistently followed and therefore should not be relied upon to deny this otherwise qualified

NJ State Bar Ass'n v. DIVORCE CTR. OF ATLANTIC CTY.

194 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1984

This service, as already noted, is clearly more than simply typing. … That is not to say that members of the public are immune from jeopardy even when represented by counsel.

Frank Lovato v. Clifton Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025

As a result, Sergeant Hayes was "entitled to absolute immunity under [N.J.S.A.] 59:5-2(b) since plaintiff[s] provided no evidence to establish [he] engaged in willful misconduct." … To pierce [N.J.S.A. 59:]3-3's qualified immunity, a plaintiff must prove more than ordinary negligence.

Peter Innes v. Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Esq. v. Mitchell A. Liebowitz, Esq.

435 N.J. Super. 198 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 2014

"Any other ruling would in effect immunize [defendants] from liability[.]" Berman, supra, 80 N.J. at 432. … Conk was clearly qualified to render the opinions he gave at trial, and the judge did not mistakenly exercise his discretion in so ruling. See Koseoglu v. Wry, 431 N.J.

Kloss v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills

170 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1979

Article IV, dealing with salaries for patrolmen, established four ranges, a starting salary, and salaries after the first, second and third year of employment. … Clearly, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-5 did not intend to count service in one job title with one municipality for promotional examination to an unrelated job title in another municipality.

Balazinski v. Lebid

65 N.J. Super. 483 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 15, 1961

Clearly, the County Court judgment in the will contest did not make the present title dispute res adjudicata. … Her personal presence before the Russian court and her testimony established that she was still living.

State v. Scott

236 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 1989

The trial judge accepted the State’s claims, despite defendant’s objection that the prior non-Graves Act sentences established that the earlier robberies were not Graves Act offenses. … 2C:43-6d, the facts and circumstances clearly support a finding that the earlier offense was a Graves Act offense.

State v. Ettore

228 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 1988

Each test result established that the ampule batch was prepared properly. … Even assuming that this argument was properly before us, the asserted proofs do not qualify as newly discovered evidence.

Proskurnja v. Elder

73 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 1962

But before coverage can be extended to any applicant, he must clearly demonstrate that he is a member of the class for whose benefit the Fund was established." … It is my conclusion that plaintiffs here have demonstrated clearly that they are within the class for whose benefit the Fund was established within the meaning of *476 the provisions of the act.