Case law

State v. Russo

213 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1986

The sensible test of weighing competing considerations so succinctly and clearly set forth in State v. … Total Number Non-Qualified = B+C+D+E 10,512 62% G. Total Number Qualified = A-F 6,488 38% TABLE II. DEFENDANT’S SURVEY. A. Sample Size 499—7.7% of Qualified Pool B.

Lento Law Group Pc v. Carly Hendrickson

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 2026

However, the judge added that "if [such] were the case, clearly [] Hendrickson's comments would fall . . . far short of . . . actual malice . . . ." … She stresses that her "opinion, as a matter of constitutional law, enjoys absolute immunity." Dairy Stores Inc. v. Sentinel Pub. Co., 104 N.J. 125, 147 (1986).

In Re Appeal of East Orange

80 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 5, 1963

The State Division applied, with some modifications, the formula established by Franklin Hannoch, a well-qualified expert called by East Orange. Mr. … The latter is clearly enterprise value rather than land value.

Levin v. Lewis

179 N.J. Super. 193 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 1981

Respondent is clearly an "automotive repair dealer" within the meaning of the broadly inclusive language of N.J.A.C. 13:45A-7.1. … His business is not limited to commercial or industrial establishments, and the two complainants herein clearly retained his services as individuals.

Ensslin v. Board of Trustees

311 N.J. Super. 333 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1998

Moreover, petitioner’s claims in his litigation could have been used, as effectively, to negate the proposition he was required to establish in order to qualify for an ordinary disability pension. … Clearly, therefore, while the central issue of fact and law in petitioner’s termination proceeding and civil action remained in dispute — through the conclusion of the appellate process — he was effectively precluded from

Triffin v. Liccardi Ford, Inc.

417 N.J. Super. 453 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 2011

Like the check casher in Valley National Bank , JCNB clearly violated a provision of the Act and, therefore, failed to observe reasonable commercial standards of the check cashing industry as established by the Act. … N.J.S.A. 17:15A-48a(5). [5] We reject Triffin's argument that Liccardi did not establish its defenses.

State v. Porro

158 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 13, 1978

This statute requires the county election officials "once during every four years [to] cause the entire registry list to be investigated by house-to-house canvass to establish the fact of continued residence, removal, death … It is one thing for the commissioners to formulate a qualified jury list for presentment to the assignment judge but it is another to grant blanket exemptions by administrative fiat to an otherwise qualified group that consists

Aronson v. Aronson

245 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1991

Clearly, defendant made no meaningful effort to improve his status. On the contrary, what he did was to allow his practice to continue to diminish unchecked while bemoaning his fate. … "While the income `or other usufruct' from immune assets may not be subject to equitable distribution, such income may be considered as a factor in alimony awards." 2 G. Skoloff & L.

TRACEY L. VIZZONI, ETC. VS. B.M.D. (L-0575-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

459 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2019

The trial judge noted that many substances could render a driver sleepy and "all of them are clearly marked with those kin ds of warning[s]." … In one instance, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-16 was applied to immunize a psychiatrist who reasonably did not know his patient intended to commit suicide. Marshall v.

Centex Homes of New Jersey, Inc. v. Manalapan Township

4 N.J. Tax 599 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 23, 1982

Hence, he concludes, the Legislature properly established a factual benchmark to clearly indicate when land is no longer “devoted” to agricultural or horticultural use. *605 This court is mindful of the settled rule of judicial … Clearly the test in Beth Israel is not only present use but contemplated future use, hence a determination of intent is significant.

Clarke v. Clarke

349 N.J. Super. 55 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2002

As the judge clearly indicated in rendering his decision at the time of divorce, plaintiff is not barred from changed circumstances applications in the future. … A qualified domestic relations order shall be entered by which the defendant/counterclaimant shall receive her one-half share ... from the amount of the benefit at [the] time [the pension] enters into pay status, pursuant

Gilhooly v. Zeta Psi Fraternity

243 N.J. Super. 201 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 1990

By way of further explanation the court went on to state: For example, if a church owned an abutting property used for a restaurant or hotel, the church in that instance would clearly be a commercial landowner. … Super. 205 [ 243 A. 2d 853 ] (Hudson Cty.Ct. 1968) (nonprofit corporation chartered to promote mental and moral improvement of mankind did not enjoy charitable immunity from tort liability when it operated bar and bowling

Montoya v. Gateway Insurance Company

168 N.J. Super. 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1979

That would clearly have been so had he been in this country legally. … This matter is clearly distinguishable. Plaintiff's rights arise under a private contract, not under statutory law.

State v. Musto

187 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 1982

Rather it establishes the framework of government with such specific restraints as are thought to be of eternal value and hence worthy of immunity from passing differences of opinion. … It is well established that the voters may not vote for a person not qualified to hold office. Stothers v.

In re J.M.

292 N.J. Super. 225 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 1996

Accordingly, it is the opinion of this court that the proofs submitted by the applicant and J.M.’s parents clearly and convincingly establish that SIBIS is a necessary element of J.M.’s right to effective treatment. … and convincingly shown and (4) that the parents of J.M. are unquestionably academically and emotionally qualified to be guardians ad litem for J.M.

Vasil v. Zullo

238 N.J. Super. 572 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1990

We also conclude that Vasil's injuries did not qualify for the PIP benefits available to a pedestrian. … Vasil was clearly not struck by an automobile.

Winer v. Winer

241 N.J. Super. 510 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 1990

As the court noted, all of these reasons clearly fell within the concept of good faith as established in Holder. Ibid. … "[T]he burden of establishing the immunity of an asset from equitable distribution rests with the party asserting the immunity...." Weiss v. Weiss, 226 N.J.

Dcpp v. A.O., in the Matter of I.O.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2025

Isaac's immunizations were also not up to date. His doctor testified the failure to keep Isaac's immunizations up to date was problematic because Isaac had a compromised immune system. … Richard Drachtman, who was qualified by the court as an expert in the field of pediatric hematology.

State v. Wilkins

219 N.J. Super. 671 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 29, 1987

the jury, and then, if necessary, select and qualify a second jury for the penalty phase. … more ‘conviction prone’ than non-death-qualified juries.” 5 476 U.S. at-, 106 S.

Hill v. NJ DEPT. OF CORRS. COM'R

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.