Case law

RUFINA ASOLUKA UNEZE v. GREYSTONE PARK PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL (L-2760-17, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 2022

Greystone is clearly an arm of the State that is not a "person" within the meaning of Section 1983. … Her defamation and false light claims were clearly time-barred.

Kisselbach v. County of Camden

271 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 1994

Kisselbach's deteriorating condition, pain, suffering and subsequent death," the judge correctly concluded that Nellis, not being a medical doctor, was not qualified to establish a causative link. … DiPiero and I don't think that that is sufficient to establish negligence on behalf of the defendants in this case.

State v. Jones

57 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 1959

The prosecution clearly established a strong prima facie case, including the positive identification of Jones as the leader of the holdup party on each of the two occasions for which he was convicted — the Brakefield robbery … Significantly, there was no attempt to establish an alibi through him.

In re Ocean County College

204 N.J. Super. 24 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 1985

These subsections clearly apply to the holder of a position in the service of a public employer. … PERC’s rejection of these reasons clearly was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

Berkery v. ESTATE OF STUART

412 N.J. Super. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2010

Plaintiff goes on to argue that none of defendants qualify under New Jersey law as "media defendants." … The book's assertion that the charges were dropped because the legal establishment "had had enough" is clearly an opinion of the author on a matter of public interest and thus not subject to a defamation claim.

BETHANY BAPTIST CH. v. Deptford Tp.

225 N.J. Super. 355 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 1988

The trial court thus determined that the property was not immune from local taxes. … We next turn to plaintiff's contention that the denial of tax immunity in the circumstances here is violative of its First Amendment rights.

State v. Koch

256 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 1991

The Supreme Court has recognized that “[t]he Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which the wrong move by a judge means immunity for the prisoner.” Bozza v. … Sheppard, supra, 125 N.J.Super. at 336 , 310 A.2d 731 , holding that “[i]t is well established that an illegal sentence is correctible at any time ...

In re the Estate of Zahn

305 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1997

If Zahn had survived, his personal estate would be protected until the property was sold and a deficiency established. His testamentary estate should be entitled to no less protection. Cf. Estate of Colquhoun v. … is language in the decedent’s will clearly expressing an intention that the mortgage debt be paid.”

Lavitz v. Civil Service Commission

52 N.J. Super. 158 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 6, 1958

The federal act insists that personnel standards on a merit basis must be established and maintained. 42 U. S. C. A. § 302(a) (5). R. … S. 44:7-11 were in existence when the Legislature determined to bring the county welfare director’s office under Civil Service, thus clearly evincing an intention to subject it to all the provisions of Title 11, the Civil

Property Owners v. Mayor

264 N.J. Super. 538 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1993

III We find plaintiffs claim of entitlement to damages and counsel fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 is clearly without merit. … In refusing to provide plaintiffs with customized solid waste collection, they have not been deprived of any "rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws...." 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Parratt v.

State v. Infinito

180 N.J. Super. 75 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 1981

We are satisfied *79 that all of these issues are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed. JOELSON, J.A.D., concurring. … The Commission noted that the privileges established by the rules of evidence "reflect legislative determination of public policy considered to be more important than the evidence excluded."

Matter of Sussex County Mun. Utilities Authority

198 N.J. Super. 214 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1985

We are convinced that the words used by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 40:14B-18 clearly manifest an intent that, other than with respect to those specifically excepted thereby, appointees and employees of utilities authorities … Without particular regard for the honored maxim inclusio unius est exclusio alterius we note with respect the established proposition that "legislative language must not, if reasonably avoidable, be found to be inoperative

Guaman v. Velez

421 N.J. Super. 239 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2011

In 2005, the Legislature adopted The Family Health Care Coverage Act (FHCCA), N.J.S.A. 30:4J-8 to-19, which re-established, reformed, and expanded a prior program to provide subsidized health insurance coverage to qualifying … Thus, the court held that: Congress has established a uniform federal policy for certain federally-funded benefits.

In re Registrant J.W.

410 N.J. Super. 125 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2009

These mandatory time limits, we believe, were established to balance a Registrant’s need for adequate preparation time with the clearly expressed legislative concern in adopting Megan’s Law that members of the public receive … There are facts that, in our view, clearly warrant higher static criteria scoring.

Mills v. City of Philadelphia

52 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 2, 1958

Such does not clearly seem to be the intention of the testatrix. … Both have qualified.

Triffin v. AMERIPAY

368 N.J. Super. 587 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 2004

We find that Ameripay is immune from liability under the specific provisions of N.J.S.A. 12A:3-402c pertaining to checks. … The funds in the payroll account clearly belonged to NTRN, not to Ameripay.

Borough of Dumont v. Caruth

123 N.J. Super. 331 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1973

The Legislature clearly intended to allow the municipalities, through their boards of recreation commissioners, to regulate the “use” of parks as well as conduct while using them. … Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.

In Re Fortenbach

119 N.J. Super. 124 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 1972

Many persons with arrest records do not even qualify for such a second "trial," since the disclosure of any previous arrests disqualify them pro se and instanter. … Clearly, then, since the statute authorizes, under certain conditions, the expungement of a conviction for "lewdness," a fortiori why not the arrest?

Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.

222 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 1987

Although we discard the label, we adhere to the principle that to overcome a qualified or conditional privilege, a plaintiff must establish that the publisher knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless disregard … It is our conclusion that the plaintiff must establish defamation against defendants by establishing actual malice in the publication of the offending articles.

State v. Snell

314 N.J. Super. 331 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1998

As a means of persuasion, and by way of protection, it is provided that anyone making a report pursuant to the statute shall have immunity from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as … See Hague, supra, 37 N.J. at 336 , 181 A. 2d 345 (establishing public interest exception to privilege); Tarasoff v.