Case law

Woll v. Dugas

104 N.J. Super. 586 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 1969

stated: "* * * where a foreign state has no real interest in having its law applied to a particular right or liability of parties to an event which occurred within its borders, a mechanical application of a disability or immunity … Super., at p. 218 ) *601 Applying the aforesaid standard of proof to the facts as I have found them to be, I conclude plaintiffs' proofs do "possess that quality" and clearly, cogently and convincingly establish that a testamentary

LL Constantin & Co. v. RP Holding Corp.

56 N.J. Super. 411 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1959

The device employed was to qualify the imposed discretion in the directors by providing that it could be avoided, but only where "otherwise provided in the certificate of incorporation, or in a by-law adopted by a vote of … To entitle a stockholder to relief, the proper grounds therefor must clearly appear.

Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

425 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2012

She has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the credible evidence each item of damage that she claims. … Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 572, 578 , (1980) (placing the burden of proving qualified immunity in a civil rights case upon the defendant because such immunity "depends on facts peculiarly

Kugler v. Banner Pontiac-Buick, Opel, Inc.

120 N.J. Super. 572 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1972

The door would then be opened for an immunity both under the Disorderly Persons Act by a local prosecutor. … In short, the remedies provided in the statute are injunction, restitution and appointment of a receiver, all clearly equitable in nature.

State v. Conners

129 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1974

The County Court judge did not knowingly sign the order of September 4, 1973 and clearly had no intention to do so. … R. 67, and failed to lay any foundation qualifying the inspection certificates as business records under Evid. R. 63(13). See State v. McGeary, supra . Furthermore, while we expressly held in State v.

Lopez v. Pitula

271 N.J. Super. 116 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1994

course requirement in effect on the date of the attorney’s admission, is in good standing, and maintains a bona fide office for the practice of law in this State regardless of where the attorney is domiciled____ A person not qualifying … In In re Sackman, 90 N.J. 521, 528-29 , 448 A.2d 1014 (1982), the Supreme Court amended R. 1:21- 1(a) to avoid challenges under the privileges and immunities, commerce and due process clauses of the Federal Constitution *

Cole National Corp. v. State Board of Examiners of Ophthalmic Dispensers & Ophthalmic Technicians

107 N.J. Super. 278 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1969

Eespondent Board was created and established by L. 1952, c. 336 (now N. J. S. … The statutory scheme protects the public by requiring those who actually examine eyes to be properly qualified.

Devon Collins v. New Jersey Transit

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 2025

using a crossing established by the railroad. … Rather, she was specifically permitted to utilize the "crossing established by the railroad." Therefore, subsection (b)(4) would also not provide immunity for the railroad.

Fs v. Ld

362 N.J. Super. 161 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2003

We begin our analysis with well-established principles of insurance law. In a dispute involving coverage under a liability policy, the insured has the burden "to bring the claims within the basic terms of the policy." … Here, the policy language clearly covers the negligent acts of the named insured's relatives who reside with him as a part of the same household. These defendants are thus entitled to be defended by Allstate.

State v. R.E.B.

385 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

In this case, we first question whether Guenther established a “new rule.” … Defense counsel countered, however, that he “heard fairly loud and clearly [the judge’s] voice indicating that the boy couldn’t be any more heartbroken. I heard that very clearly and I don’t hear the best.”

State of New Jersey v. Jardim

226 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1988

Clearly, however, her testimony, and that of her daughter, would be essential at Jardim’s trial. … By Order entered October 13, 1987, she has been granted immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:81-17.3 in return for her trial testimony.

Township of Hopewell v. Goldberg

101 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1968

Our Legislature has clearly indicated its intent that New Jersey participate in the Federal aid highway program. … Participation in the Federal highway aid program is clearly within the scope of the statutes.

Zeiger v. Wilf

333 N.J. Super. 258 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2000

While other family members were also general partners in CPA, Joseph Wilf was clearly its guiding and dominating force. … And, while there is no New Jersey decision precisely on point, [9] we are satisfied that clearly established general principles of corporate law, well reasoned authority elsewhere, and New Jersey case law, all make clear

Smith v. Board of Review

281 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1995

Here, Smith's admitted conduct in bringing food to a pre-operative patient, whose health or life could have been threatened during surgery if the mistake had not been discovered, clearly constitutes disqualifying misconduct … That conduct constituted the wilful disregard of established procedures.

Guzzi v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.

20 N.J. Super. 296 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1952

Our review of the evidence, as will appear from the recital hereinabove, clearly establishes conflicting and contradictory testimony on the question of the liability of the defendant. … I am going to qualify that, however.

State v. Allen

139 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1976

R. 63(10) because Watson's reference to the involvement of others is clearly not against his own interest. … These counts involve two of the patrons in the bar who were not robbed but were held at gunpoint with all the other occupants of the establishment.

Dale v. Boy Scouts of America

308 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1998

The BSA’s national membership criteria are clearly less restrictive than those applied by the local club in Kiwanis Int’l . … Such a result is clearly inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the LAD.

Murray v. Great Gorge Resort, Inc.

360 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2003

Consequently, "The purpose of [the Ski Statute] is to make explicit a policy of this State which clearly defines the responsibility of ski area operators and skiers ...." N.J.S.A. 5:13-1b. … Clearly, there is no duty to warn of or prevent dirt areas, make snow or close trails. Thus, there can be no liability where there is no duty.

Schults v. Bd. of Ed. of Teaneck

86 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1964

Supp. 25, 33-34 ( D.C.N.J. 1964), upholding the validity of a plan establishing a central 6th grade school in Englewood, N.J. … In our view, the Commissioner is most qualified to determine whether a budget meets the requirements of those regulations, rather than the court.

State of New Jersey v. Rodney Armour

446 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2016

A trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial "shall not be reversed unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." … Further, it is not our intent to establish a bright-line rule where retesting of fingerprints is, or is not, required.