Case law

Sj v. Div. of Med. Assistance

426 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2012

If an individual is eligible for NJ FamilyCare-Plan A, he or she cannot qualify for another plan. … *650 program into a qualifying program without being considered new applicants.

Casey v. Brennan

344 N.J. Super. 83 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 2001

Defendant Amboy National Bank's predecessor in-interest was established in 1888 in South Amboy. … The record also clearly supports those conclusions.

Feist v. Joseph Dixon Crucible Co.

30 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1954

It was established that Ambrook was the equitable owner *156 of the stock registered in the name of May M. Feist, and was also the owner of 125 shares registered in its name. … Justice Garrison, speaking for the court, discussed the question as to whether under the statute the qualified right to inspect, theretofore existing at common law, had been transformed into an unqualified right. Mr.

Schlenger v. Conti

47 N.J. Super. 566 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 29, 1957

A legislative directive such as is contained in N.J.S.A. 39:6-65 could not more clearly be expressed: notice "shall," within 30 (now 90) days after the accident, and "as a condition precedent" to the right thereafter to apply … That Board consists of the Director, the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, and four representatives of insurers, and is "established in, but not as a part of, the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and

Meta v. TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL AND COUNTY OF CAMDEN

152 N.J. Super. 228 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1977

Respondents argue they are immune from liability by virtue of N.J.S.A. 59:4-7, which provides: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused solely by the effect on the use of streets and highways … Moreover, establishment of a general method of handling snow-storms is a matter of planning.

Muniz v. UNT'D HSP. MED. CENT.

146 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 23, 1976

Of course, that immunity was judicially terminated, Collopy v. … The prompt legislative response indicates an intent to reassert the principle of immunity but at the same time to meet the more significant objections to immunity voiced by the Supreme Court in Collopy .

Boublis v. Garden State Farms, Inc.

122 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 22, 1972

The commissioner may adopt and promulgate reasonable rules, regulations and orders regulating air traffic and establishing minimum standards for aircraft, pilots, fixed base operators, airports, landing fields, landing strips … A consideration of the opinions treating of this subject evokes the conclusion that the test to be applied to a land use in order to ascertain whether it qualifies for an immunity from local zoning regulations is whether

Transport of New Jersey v. Matos

202 N.J. Super. 571 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1985

The legislative intent to create a public entity is manifest in N.J.S.A. 27:25-4(a) which declares in no uncertain terms: There is hereby established in the Executive Branch of the State Government the New Jersey Transit … The act begins by immunizing the State from all liability in the following broad terms: "Except as otherwise provided by this act, a public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission

In Re Application of McGlynn

58 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1959

The testimony taken before us clearly establishes that the Governor's message was received in the Senate on May 11, read and entered at large on the Journal, reconsidered, and passed over the Governor's objections. … We hold that applicants have clearly failed to discharge the burden of proof which is theirs. VII.

ABC Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Grant

459 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2019

. *929 Judge Innes found that ABC had not met its burden of proof establishing that the Directive was unconstitutional. … But that constitutional right is clearly qualified by, among other limitations, compliance with the conditions of bail not only by the principal but also by the surety. [ Id. at 451 , 839 A.2d 896 .]

D.C. AND M.L. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 2020

Notably, N.J.A.C. 10:72-1.1(a)(1) provides: Because the eligibility criteria established by the rules contained within this chapter are more liberal than those applicable under AFDC-related … We reject DMAHS's contention that "[petitioners] suffered no prejudice" because the "three months of retroactive benefits once eligibility is established" adequately "addresses the challenges [petitioners] face."

Butler Oak Tavern v. DIV. OF ALCO. BEV. CONTROL

36 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 22, 1955

No constitutional guarantees are involved in the revocation of a liquor license, which implicates no inherent rights of citizenship nor any privileges or immunities of the citizens of the several states. Meehan v. … Failure to have shown hearer's report to appellant clearly violated his right to have the decision based exclusively upon matters in the record which are known to him and can consequently be controverted by him.

Merchants Express Money Order Co. v. Sun National Bank

374 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 2005

I say that because clearly it is not disputed that the usual course of conduct between [Thurlow/Chelsea] and Sun was as it [has] previously been described. … So at the risk of over-simplifying it, this money is not [Thurlow/Chelsea’s], therefore, clearly, under the Money Transmitters Act.

Atlas v. Silvan

128 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1974

I A careful review of the record establishes that the trial judge properly denied plaintiff's motion made at the end of the testimony offered by defendants in defense of the plaintiff's claim and in support of their counterclaim … II Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred in permitting defendant Fred Silvan to testify as to the actual size of the property since he had not qualified in accordance with Evid. R. 19. We disagree.

State v. Contemporary Communities

337 N.J. Super. 177 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 2001

ALJ Masin considered “the nature of the charges, the statutory provisions, the burden of proof, and the standard established in Brill.” … He clearly established his findings, stating, “I conclude that the respondents thereby violated the Consumer Fraud Act.”

State v. O'KEEFE

135 N.J. Super. 430 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1975

Such a course would be indefensible, would clearly amount to jeopardy, and would warrant the most severe condemnation. … Both statutory and case law unambiguously establish notice of revocation as an essential element of the offense. N.J.S.A. 39:5-30; State v. Hammond, supra .

Monmouth Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.

203 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1985

In determining whether the proposed dealership offended the foregoing policy behind the legislation the AU came to the following conclusion: Clearly, this is not the ease. … It is a long-established dealership spanning three generations and the testimony of Mr.

Ron Mills v. State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury

435 N.J. Super. 69 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 2014

As filed, the complaint clearly set forth the facts upon which plaintiffs' claims were based. … However, our Supreme Court has clearly established a strong judicial policy disapproving such pleas.

Morrison v. Township of Lumberton

319 N.J. Super. 355 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 1999

A narrative in the police report reviewed by the expert noted that the stop sign was “clearly visible.” … We rejected the county’s argument that it was immune from liability under the provisions of N.J.S.A 59:4-5 (precluding liability for the failure to provide ordinary traffic signals or signs).

City of Jersey City v. Farmer

329 N.J. Super. 27 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 2000

With a brief exception in 1975 [7] , until the qualifying population size was reduced to 200,000 in 1990, only Newark qualified by population to enact a payroll tax under the Act. … There the Health Care Facilities Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-1 to -26, established a certificate-of-need procedure as a prerequisite for opening a new hospital.