Case law

Wellington v. Estate of Wellington

359 N.J. Super. 484 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2003

Plaintiff argues: "A property settlement is clearly distinguishable from support and maintenance." … The paragraph *675 clearly states that in settlement of that right, she will receive $50,000.

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.

Ferry Plaza Urban Renewal, L.P. v. City of Newark

21 N.J. Tax 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 14, 2003

Plaintiff qualified as an urban renewal entity, and received approval from defendant for its project. See N.J.S.A. 40A:20-3(g); 40A:20-5; 40A:20-8. … The SILOT reimbursements paid by tenants to the taxpayer qualify as revenue.

Adamson v. Chiovaro

308 N.J. Super. 70 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 1998

Gordon was not qualified to express such opinions since he lacks a medical degree. … If defendant successfully establishes in a subrogation action that Paul Revere is obligated to plaintiff under the terms of the disability policy, it would be entitled to receive from Paul Revere such sums as may be due,

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.

Liguori v. Allstate Ins. Co.

76 N.J. Super. 204 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 1962

Putting to one side the choate-inchoate discussion, it clearly establishes that there is no right in such a claimant to interfere with distribution merely because such payment diminishes the fund. … On the other hand, settlement with a co-claimant under circumstances which *213 do not contain elements of bad faith is, and should be, immune from a demand for restraint and ratable distribution.

In Re Commitment of MM

384 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 2006

On the basis of the forgoing, we hold that trial courts must take a narrow view of the circumstances that qualify as "exceptional" and establish "good cause" for extension. … As these statutes clearly provide, medical labels are not determinative of the existence of a qualifying "mental illness" or dangerousness; a functional analysis of the patient's condition under "the standards plainly articulated

In re Baykal

309 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1998

The 1986 Civil Service Act established three classes of State civil service employees: career, N.J.S.A llA:3-2, SES, N.J.S.A. llA:3-3, and unclassified, N.J.S.A llA:3-4. N.J.S.A. … Finally, appellant’s argument that the Department of Labor violated her rights by failing to undertake steps to create the position of Director, Temporary Disability Insurance, and to appoint her to that position, is clearly

McHale v. CIVIL SERVICE COMM'N

178 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 1981

A commission was bestowed upon him upon completion of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) Program established pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.A. § 2101 et seq. … "clearly excludes the type of service to which... [appellant was] a participant" and dismissed his appeal. Appellant did not pursue judicial review of the Commission's decision.

B.C. v. T.G.

430 N.J. Super. 455 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2013

a child-in-common of the parties in order to establish jurisdiction under the Act. … In this case, plaintiff herself is a minor, but nonetheless clearly qualifies as a domestic violence victim under the Act because she had a dating relationship with defendant.

State v. Muessig

198 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1985

He provided money ($5,000) to aid in the establishment of the enterprise and armed himself to protect his interests. He turned on the society that he had been entrusted to protect as a police officer. … We conclude that defendant's equal protection clause attack on the Graves Act, not the subject of a cross-appeal and not raised below, is not properly before us and, in any event, is clearly without merit.

State v. Noel

303 N.J. Super. 435 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1997

He was well qualified on the subject. He had testified as an expert on bullet lead analysis on numerous occasions and had analyzed tens of thousands of bullets. … , a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Shaw v. City of Jersey City

346 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 2002

Judge Gallipoli found from plaintiff's testimony and the narrative of the events contained in the police report that plaintiff's injuries were caused by the "clearly intentional conduct of the uninsured tortfeasor who tried … NJM concedes that the facts here establish a substantial nexus between the accident and the use of an uninsured vehicle.

Boardwalk Reg. Corp. v. Casino Control Comm.

352 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2002

The Commission also found that DiBartolomeo was no longer required to qualify in connection with the renewal of Caesars' license, provided he "be found qualified before he *163 resumes or assumes the duties or exercises the … ERISA defines the term "employee welfare benefit plan" as: [a] program which [is] established ... by an employer ..., to the extent that such plan ... was established ... for the purpose of providing ... through the purchase

FG v. MacDonell

291 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 1996

The standard under which motions to dismiss are considered is well-established in New Jersey. … action for damages, originally naming Edna as a co-defendant, and Edna cross-claimed against the priest and the diocese. *270 In evaluating Edna's claim, the court defined the "threshold issue" as whether the First Amendment immunized

Exadaktilos v. Cinnaminson Realty Co. Inc.

167 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1979

Since plaintiff seeks to qualify for the relief afforded "oppressed" shareholders, resolution of the dispute concerning ownership necessarily precedes an evaluation of the merits of this claim. … Consequently, actions of close corporations that conform with these principles cannot be immune from scrutiny.

Mays v. Penza

179 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1980

Such a disadvantage would clearly constitute irreparable harm to defendants. … A statement filed pursuant to subsection d. of this section shall state the residence and post office address of the person so selected, and shall certify that the person so selected is qualified under the laws of this State

Hyland v. Smollok

137 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1975

Clearly, information concerning previous cases brought under the Removal Act which defendant contends is relevant to his defense of selective enforcement, may be obtained from other representatives of the Attorney General's … This is a far cry from demonstrating the proof of purposefully discriminatory enforcement necessary to establish a violation of equal protection. [Citations omitted.] Yick Wo v.

Salamone v. Regency Palace

337 N.J. Super. 374 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2000

In that case, the plaintiff would clearly have made physical contact with her vehicle and would have been covered under the PIP statute. … Finally, the substantial nexus causation requirement between the injury and qualifying vehicle is present.