Case law

Silver v. Commonwealth Trust Co.

22 N.J. Super. 604 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 17, 1952

Altogether, the decisions clearly evince a canon of discipline in the relation of banker and depositor that is founded upon necessity, and firmly established. … The authorities cited affirm this clearly.

Parker v. M & T CHEMICALS, INC.

236 N.J. Super. 451 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1989

The Whistle Blowers Act "serves an important, legitimate governmental purpose clearly within the State['s] police powers and deals with a direct and vital concern of the legislature...." Ibid. … , or to establish a defense to a criminal charge, civil claim or disciplinary complaint against the lawyer based upon the conduct in which the client was involved.

Hill v. New Jersey DepartMent of Corrections Commissioner

342 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2001

Post-traumatic stress disorder may qualify as severe emotional distress. Ibid. … Clearly, under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25), the statement was admissible against Peterson as a statement against her interest.

Matter of Commitment of AA

252 N.J. Super. 170 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 27, 1991

Appellant contends that his involuntary commitment was illegal because the State failed to establish the requisite grounds for his commitment by clear and convincing evidence. … However, in most cases, proof of so serious a threat of psychological harm to others would require testimony by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other professionally qualified witness.

Henry Gordon v. Matthew Mannisto

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 2026

A-2726-23 8  Because defendant meets all the requirements established in Hawkins, we conclude the litigation privilege provides defendant with absolute immunity from plaintiff's … As the attorney representing one of the primary parties to the action, defendant clearly qualifies as an "other participant" under Hawkins.

Serrano v. Serrano

367 N.J. Super. 450 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2004

Stated another way, they urge that even non-serious soft tissue injuries qualify so long as there is permanency. … We can clearly perceive circumstances where a person sustains a soft tissue injury, which, though permanent, is not at all serious.

Paul v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

196 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1984

We are satisfied that Paul's attendants and the coordinator qualify as part of his psychiatric care, and as such constitute proper "medical expenses." … Where the testimony and the opinions in the record clearly establish that the attendants were necessary, and even recommended, there is no need for a formal written prescription.

Jane Jlw Roe v. Jersey City Public Schools

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2026

Under the TCA, the Legislature established that "[g]enerally, immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception." Nieves v. Adolf, 241 N.J. 567, 575 (2020) (quoting Fleuhr v. … The CVA includes N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3, which establishes that "immunity from civil liability granted by [the TCA] to a public entity or public employee shall not apply to an action at law for damages as a result of a sexual

In Re Expungement of Commitment Records of D. G.

162 N.J. Super. 404 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1977

However, if by cure it is meant a state of immunity with no possibility of recurrence later in life, the authorities were not yet in a position to give an absolute guarantee. … A. 30:4-80.11) the Legislature clearly intended to place petitioner in the same position he was in before the hospitalization and illness occurred, with a view toward eliminating to the greatest possible extent petitioner

State v. SMITH

102 N.J. Super. 325 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1968

The presence of a stenographer and the recording of testimony adduced before the grand jury is clearly of a permissive nature. State v. DiModica, 40 N.J. 404, 412 (1963). … Once the movant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, i.e., a significant disparity between those qualified for jury service and those of the group actually on the jury lists, the burden of proof shifts to the

Moehring v. Maute

268 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 12, 1993

It is generally accepted that "financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students." Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 544 , 443 A. 2d 1031 (1982). … A personal injury settlement differs from a custodial or trust account established for the child's education. Clearly, funds set aside for educational purposes should be utilized to defray the parents' obligation.

Branch v. White

99 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1968

It is obvious that all eligible employees had to be notified of this condition in order to be able to qualify for participation. … Journeymen, etc., 279 F. 2 d 92, 97 (7 Cir. 1960), the court clearly indicated that employees have a right to bring an action in a state court under established principles of equity where their action is based on an alleged

H.F. v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2026

Additionally, the Legislature clearly extended accidental disability "coverage for mental injuries" to members. Patterson, 194 N.J. at 44. … Our conclusion is consistent with a long-established line of Supreme Court cases.

Rosiak v. Melvin

351 N.J. Super. 322 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 2002

Because defendant’s statement to plaintiff, that he’d previously spent time in jail for assaulting his second wife, is clearly admissible as a statement of a party, N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1), as well as a statement against interest … In the case subjudice, the evidence, of defendant’s past history of abusing his second wife, is relevant because it has a tendency to establish “a fact of consequence to the determination of the action”, N.J.R.E. 401, i.e

F.S. v. L.D.

362 N.J. Super. 161 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2003

We begin our analysis with well-established principles of insurance law. … Here, the policy language clearly covers the negligent acts of the named insured’s relatives who reside with him as a part of the same household.

Galvano v. Board of Trustees of the Public Employees' Retirement System

225 N.J. Super. 388 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1988

The Board clearly had jurisdiction to approve that pension request, although its approval was incorrectly exercised in light of the age 62 requirement of N.J.S.A. 43:15A-61(b). … Board with direction that Galvano be afforded opportunity to establish those facts by direct proof. If so established, a veteran’s pension consistent with those facts should be afforded.

ROBERT KELLY VS. JAMES SIMPSON (L-0667-14, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 2018

established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." … Because defendants acted on behalf of the State, and the record does not support a violation of clearly established law, Judge Hurd correctly determined they were entitled to qualified immunity from plaintiff's freedom

Cano v. Malone

237 N.J. Super. 272 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1989

He contends, moreover, that even if it is applicable, it is not appropriately applied in the instant case because the police report clearly indicates that a “phantom” car was involved in the accident. … N.J.S.A. 39:6-65 states: ... provided, any such qualified person may, in lieu of giving said notice within said time, make proof to the court on the hearing of the application for the payment of a judgment ... [1] that he

State v. Reldan

185 N.J. Super. 494 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1982

Moreover, the two instances sought to be employed to establish defendant's identity were themselves dissimilar. … Our examination of the record presented leads to the conclusion that these contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Arne v. Liotta

313 N.J. Super. 616 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1998

Eq. 600, 602-03 , 165 A. 643 (Ch.1933) (immunity to service of process); see also Antonelli v. Antonelli, 14 N.J.Super. 580, 586 , 82 A.2d 482 (Ch. … The other issues raised on appeal and cross-appeal are either clearly without merit or rendered moot by this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.