Case law

Soto v. Scaringelli

384 N.J. Super. 431 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2006

AICRA modified the categories of injury qualifying for recompense under the verbal threshold. … Clearly there can be scars that are so minimal and so concealed from view that no reasonable person could find them significant. We do not find that to be the case here.

Schechter v. NJ DEPT. OF LAW

327 N.J. Super. 428 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 2000

N.J.S.A. 5:12-71a provides: The commission shall, by regulation, provide for the establishment of a list of persons who are to be excluded or ejected from any licensed casino establishment. … N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.4(b) Although N.J.S.A. 5:12-71a imposes an obligation upon the Commission to establish and maintain a casino exclusion list, the statute and regulations adopted thereunder clearly indicate that both the Commission

State v. Parkins

263 N.J. Super. 423 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1993

Clearly, the fine was illegal (the assessment being below the statutory minimum); but more significantly, the court below had no authority to disqualify the defendant from obtaining a commercial drivers license. … It defines a lesser included offense as one which “is established by proof of the *426 same or less than all the factors required to establish the commission of the offense charged ...” (emphasis supplied).

Kerr v. Able Sanitary and Environmental Services, Inc.

295 N.J. Super. 147 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1996

The record also reflects, however, that Cowell submitted a subsequent certification in which she qualified her statement concerning the timeframe in which she spoke with Haley: I thought I had spoken to Mr. … ("Under R. 4:10-3, the burden is clearly on the person to be deposed to show that a protective order is necessary ....").

Phillips v. Curiale

245 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1991

Thus, we do not agree that Phillips’ claim against his fellow employees, and through them the State by way of indemnification, could be deemed clearly to have “vested” prior to 1986, as distinct from being a “pending” claim … is also appropriate to note that Administratrix elected to ignore the Court’s recommendation to proceed first with the administrative remedy against the Department of Defense, see id. at 253 , 486 A.2d 318 , in order to establish

County Trust Co. v. Bryant

111 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1970

The case before us is clearly distinguishable on several grounds. … It now argues that the October 2 hearing for the purpose of qualifying Christensen actually constituted part of the application for the bank charter. Clearly, that is not so.

Russell v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.

234 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1989

This circumstance merely suggests that sometimes the effort to establish a principle is costly, particularly if that effort is unsuccessful. … There is no reason why plaintiff should be obliged to bear the cost of Rutgers' efforts to establish its immunity from payment of DRG charges.

Demech v. BD. OF REVIEW, DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY

167 N.J. Super. 35 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1979

The facts recounted by the Board of Review in the proceedings on remand establish that claimant was employed for nine months by the Great Atlantic & Pacific Company (A & P) as a meat wrapper. … Inadvertent or unintentional acts, or simple neglectful conduct not amounting to *39 a wanton disregard of consequences, will not so qualify. Id. at 182.

Jacques v. Kinsey

347 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 2001

To summarize, in order to pass the verbal threshold for a permanent injury, plaintiff must establish, within a reasonable degree of medical probability and through a physician's certification, four factors: (1) qualifying … If plaintiff fails to establish any one of the four criteria, the claim is defeated.

Corrigan v. Corrigan

160 N.J. Super. 400 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 1978

An additional feature of Joseph's plan is that an alternate death benefit is provided for in an amount equal to the pension reserve which would have been established had Joseph retired on the date of death. … What, then, constitutes control under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, the equitable distribution statute, and what interests qualify for distribution?

Sanders v. Hunter

253 N.J. Super. 666 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 1991

judgment creditor against the operator and owner of the motor vehicle by which the accident was occasioned and shall bring an action ... when and in the event that the identity of either or both of such persons shall be established … Clearly the reference is to section N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.4 wherein is described the so-called “hit and run” owner or driver (see section N.J.S.A. 39:6-78).

Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill

381 N.J. Super. 412 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 2005

Indeed, "opinion[s], as a matter of constitutional law, enjoy absolute immunity." Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 147 , 516 A. 2d 220 (1986). … Here, defendant's statement was clearly opinion, as it cannot be proved or disproved. Further, he has failed to demonstrate any harm suffered as a result of the statement.

Federbush v. Federbush

5 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1949

The judgment of contempt must have been founded upon the court's conclusion from the evidence that in conjunction with defendant's disobedience of the order he clearly possessed the financial means, but not the willingness … He appears to be well qualified and capable; and it is reasonable to assume that his prospect of advancement and increased earnings are good.

Caminiti v. Board of Trustees

431 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 2013

After hearing from appellant and expert witnesses from both sides, the ALJ concluded that appellant qualified for accidental disability because, as a reasonable sheriffs officer in 2000, he could have suffered a qualifying … The Court found that “prolonged exposure” clearly failed to meet the traumatic event requirement as that term had been defined for purposes of accidental disability pensions. Id. at 51 , 942 A.2d 782 .

James Mathewson v. Charles J. Most, psy.D.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2026

Defendant moved for summary judgment based on judicial immunity and litigation privilege. … On de novo review, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Rowe v.

State v. Teare

129 N.J. Super. 562 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1974

Defense counsel was informed both by telephone and by letter that the test ampule of defendant had been destroyed in accordance with the routine established by the State Police. … Clearly, an important avenue of cross-examination on the test would be closed to defendant.

Eaton v. Grau

368 N.J. Super. 215 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2004

"[T]o establish the right to such relief, it must be shown that enforcement of the order or judgment would be unjust, oppressive or inequitable." Id. … Clearly, the financial misfortune of defendant, of which plaintiff was aware at the time the PSA was executed, was not the type of willful, purposeful conduct contemplated by this provision.

Financial Services, L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

326 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 1999

He also testified the proposed use did not qualify as a conditional use and, therefore, a special reasons variance was required. … That standard has generally been defined in relation to the purposes of zoning, see N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, and our decisions have emphasized the promotion of the general welfare as the zoning purpose that most clearly amplifies

Pollo v. Hospital Service Plan

220 N.J. Super. 243 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1987

We are guided in considering the question before us by well-established principles governing the construction of exclusionary clauses in contracts of insurance. See Hunt v. … Clearly, however, the tort remedy and the compensation remedy cannot be simultaneously available.

State v. Williams

252 N.J. Super. 369 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 5, 1991

The burden is on the proponent to "clearly establish" each of these methods. Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 105 N.J. 373, 378 , 522 A. 2d 405 (1987). … These highly qualified scientists testified to the overwhelming acceptance within the scientific community of PCR-amplified DNA testing.