Case law

Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Director of Taxation

387 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 2006

Div. of Taxation, 9 N.J.Tax 152, 158 (1987) (“[Exemption statutes must be strictly construed, and the burden is on the taxpayer to establish entitlement to exemption.”). … Clearly, however, they are an essential part of the operation and function of Quest’s laboratory business, and common sense dictates that they are neither “containers” nor “wrapping materials” as contemplated by the exemption

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.

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.

Shallcross v. COMMUNITY STATE BANK AND TRUST CO.

180 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1981

Article 9 lays out the framework upon which competing security interests can be evaluated and priorities established. … In this regard, N.J.S.A. 12A:9-312(5) provides in relevant part that In all cases not governed by other rules stated in this section (including cases of purchase money security interests which do not qualify for the special

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Tymkow

87 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1965

Ct. 1964), wherein the court stated: *115 "If the defendant is neither the named insured nor an omnibus insured there is clearly no obligation to defend regardless of the allegations of the petition and irrespective of the … To hold otherwise is to completely erase from the policy the qualifying phrase `against the insured,' contained in Clause II (a) * * *."

Wasserman v. Tannenbaum

23 N.J. Super. 599 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1952

It is the established rule in all jurisdictions that this statute must be strictly construed. … Laws (Tent.) §§ 431, 432, although there is authority that, because of the remedial character of these statutes, the rights of the beneficiaries will not be allowed to fail for the want of a trustee qualified to bring the

M.G. Sheridan Avenue Family Limited Partnership v. Oceanside Contracting

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 2024

immunity. … Nelson had qualified immunity. See Gormley v. Wood-El, 218 N.J. 72, 113 (2014). Therefore, those issues are deemed abandoned on appeal. Shangzhen Huang, 461 N.J.

State v. Moore

207 N.J. Super. 561 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 1985

Adams has already been subjected to one trial with a death qualified jury. … Adams has the right to be free from being required to sit through a new trial, and the presentation of all the evidence before a new death qualified jury.

Matter of Mallon

232 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 1989

Although he could not clearly remember all the names on his absentee ballot, Webb knew for a fact that he voted for all the Republican candidates listed. … Here, petitioner clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing the person for whom the other challenged absentee ballots were cast, or that circumstances prevented such proofs.

Marx v. Marx

265 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 1993

DISCUSSION Under New Jersey law, pensions are clearly subject to equitable distribution. Kruger v. Kruger, 73 N.J. 464 , 375 A. 2d 659 (1977). … Plaintiff's form of the qualified domestic relations order shall be entered.

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.

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.

Gangemi v. National Health Laboratories, Inc.

291 N.J. Super. 569 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1996

Thus, the statute clearly anticipates recovery for any qualifying family member, but excludes cohabiting fíancés, Mends, or neighbors who never could have standing under intestacy laws. … Plaintiffs sister had the capacity to provide this help, and was especially qualified to do so, as she had worked for many years in the field that plaintiff eventually entered.

Winstock v. Galasso

430 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 2013

be okay if [they] played cards in the establishment.” … Russo subsequently advised the plaintiff “not to discuss the case with the IRS without a grant of immunity.” Ibid.

LP Marron & Co. v. River Vale Tp.

54 N.J. Super. 64 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1959

Super. at page 44) it is made clear that the substantial reliance that will immunize the landowner from subsequent legislation must be a "justifiable expenditure in good faith." In the Crecca case, supra ( 52 N.J. … Moreover, our examination of the record does not convince us that the claimed factual effect is clearly established.

Blessing v. Prosser

141 N.J. Super. 548 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 1976

. * * * Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States. … In fact, it clearly points the other way. In Avdel defendant, a resident of New York, ordered rivets from plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation.

National Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Middlesex County Improvement Authority

291 N.J. Super. 283 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1996

After reviewing several responses, MCIA decided that National and Waste Management were qualified as well as four other contrac *288 tors. … Any fair reading of that language it seems to me indicates that it clearly contemplates recovery of recydables through a recycling program, followed by marketing.

Cooper Medical Center v. Joyner

165 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1979

These sanctions may include, but need not be limited to, license revocation, termination of state assistance and court action. [1] *485 Clearly, Congress and the Secretary have made ample provision for the enforcement of … the hospital, contributions from charitable corporations, the budget of the hospital, the determination of the class to be benefited by Hill-Burton funds, and whether the defendant as a member of the `working poor' was qualified