Case law

State Shorthand Reporting Services v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 12, 2024

Moreover, "[i]f the language leads to a clearly understood result, the judicial inquiry ends without any need to resort to extrinsic sources." Hudson, 209 N.J. at 529. … This provision is not qualified by reference to any FUTA exemption.

M.E.F. v. A.B.F.

393 N.J. Super. 543 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2007

After spending down his assets, he qualified as a medically needy person for payment of his mu-sing home expenses by Medicaid. … His wife, M.E.F., received $576 per month from Social Security as her sole source of independent income—an amount that was clearly inadequate for her support.

Nj St. College Council v. Higher Ed. Bd.

181 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 1981

Set policy on salary and fringe benefits, and establish general personnel policies for the public institutions of higher education; .... … order, when, and if, a vacancy in a position for which such professor, associate professor, assistant professor, *190 instructor, supervisor, registrar, teacher, or other person employed in a teaching capacity shall be qualified

In Re Distribution of Casino Simulcasting Sp. Fund

398 N.J. Super. 7 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2008

Subsection d, however, also requires the NJRC to distribute this finite portion of the Special Fund among competing applicants who each must establish their eligibility under standards established by the Legislature. … Clearly, THA's request, which is for an arbitrary fractional share of the available fund, is inconsistent with the statutory standard.

State v. Pometti

23 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1952

Examining into the circumstances surrounding the defendant's case in the matter sub judice, we find that he was represented by qualified counsel throughout the proceedings; that counsel had numerous consultations with him … We are of the opinion that defendant's application for leave to establish proof of the implications was properly denied.

P.B. v. T.H.

370 N.J. Super. 586 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2004

Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status. … [I]t clearly indicates that this child has an incredibly close relationship with [P.B.] ... far more than a neighbor, far more than a babysitter which [T.H.] at one point tried to portray [P.B.], far more than a godmother

NANCY G. SLUTSKY VS. KENNETH J. SLUTSKY (FM-14-1535-08, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

451 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2017

Div. 1985) (reversal is required when the results could not "reasonably have been reached by the trial judge on the evidence, or whether it is clearly unfair or unjustly distorted by a … "For purposes of valuing the goodwill of a law practice, the true enhancement to be evaluated is the likelihood of repeat patronage and a certain degree of immunity from competition." Ibid.

Correa v. Maggiore

196 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 1984

II Defendant next contends that Mario Lo Gatto was not properly qualified as an expert and that his testimony constituted a mere "net opinion." We disagree with both contentions. … We emphasize that the nature and extent of the corrective procedures necessary to cure the defective condition could not be established until the work commenced.

Ortley Beach Property Owners Ass'n v. Fire Commissioners

320 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1998

The Legislature shall not pass any private, special or local laws: (8) Granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. … Finally, they conclude that the classification established by Section 11 is rationally related to the statute’s purpose.

Arthur v. St. Peters Hospital

169 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1979

Super. 567, 570 (Law Div. 1979). [3] The general rule of immunizing persons from vicarious liability for the negligent acts of independent contractors has been applied equally to hospitals. … Here, however, the exception is clearly inapplicable since the negligence complained of has nothing to do with the danger of x-rays. [4] This conclusion relates to liability of a hospital to its patient.

Blatterfein v. Larken Associates

323 N.J. Super. 167 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1999

Neveroski ... seems to say very clearly that somebody like an architect should not be subject to the Consumer Fraud Act. However, I don't know whether I can follow that language at this point. … If Yarrington's architectural services had been retained by any of the plaintiffs directly there might be some merit to his argument that the general principle of Vort as illuminated by our dictum in Neveroski established

NJ State League of Municipalities v. Kimmelman

197 N.J. Super. 89 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1984

Chapter 220, as well as the entire legislative history, cannot more clearly express the intent of the Legislature that qualified property not be taxed and it is immaterial whether the property is to be excluded or omitted … To qualify as a park the land must contain no fewer than ten mobile home sites.

Wilson v. Paradise Village Beach Resort & Spa

395 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2007

We conclude that such promotional activity does not establish the continuous and substantial presence within New Jersey required to establish the general jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts over a nonresident defendant. … It is undisputed that defendants are not qualified to do business in New Jersey and have not designated an agent for service of process in New Jersey.

State v. M.J.K.

369 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2004

It was in these aspects of the experts’ analyses that the divergence of opinions most clearly exposed the flaws in Joseph’s methodology. … Joseph is not, in general, qualified to determine competence to stand trial.

McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp.

204 N.J. Super. 514 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 1985

As already noted, plaintiff's employment was clearly pursuant to the company's 1981 telegram and at-will. … Plaintiff's remaining contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Alampi v. Russo

345 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 29, 2001

Russo retorts that the government never indicated any inclination to immunize or deal leniently with plaintiff. … He clearly and unconditionally pled guilty to a criminal offense committed before Russo's representation arose.

McLaughlin v. Rosanio, Bailets & Talamo, Inc.

331 N.J. Super. 303 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 17, 2000

On the other hand, "slander per se," the doctrine involved in this appeal, refers to four categories of slander which are considered so clearly damaging to reputation that a plaintiff may establish a cause of action without … As radio broadcasts are not clearly slander (the consensus elsewhere is that they are libel), the slander per se analysis should not be applied here.

Healy v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ.

287 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 1996

Healy's contention is clearly wrong. … The switch to fourteen continuous semesters clearly defined exactly when tenure attached.

Gross v. Cohen Dufour & Associates

273 N.J. Super. 617 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 9, 1993

Needless to say, plaintiffs are clearly in control of their litigation. … Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535, 560 , 388 A. 2d 951 (1978) (interspousal tort immunity does not bar personal injury suits between married persons but, "in view of the significant change in the law," the decision should be prospective

McIntosh v. Milano

168 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1979

They did uphold the therapists' contention that statutory immunity insulated them from liability for failure to confine. 17 Cal. 3d at 447 , 131 Cal. Rptr. at 31 , 551 P. 2d at 351 . … If accepted, defendant's argument would establish a sphere of immunity from liability "for the foreseeable results" of the action or inaction of a therapist (assuming the factfinder might reasonably find it was a foreseeable