Case law

State v. Smith

142 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1976

It must also appear that the examiner is qualified and the test administered in accordance with established polygraph techniques. [ 62 N.J. at 46 ] *578 In the matter before us the document with which we are concerned, denominated … Such a state of affairs clearly contravenes McDavitt and its insistence that the stipulation be "clear, unequivocal and complete."

In Re Estate of Posey

89 N.J. Super. 293 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1965

Copeland qualified as executrix. … A gift to take effect at death must comply with the statutory requirements for wills which were clearly not complied with here.

State v. Auringer

335 N.J. Super. 94 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2000

A statute is presumed to be constitutional and the burden of establishing unconstitutionality is on the party challenging its *100 validity. State v. … Defendant has demonstrated no burden of any kind on interstate commerce, let alone a “clearly excessive” burden, see Pike v.

State v. Dreher

251 N.J. Super. 300 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 1991

Thereupon, the court admitted the challenged testimony with the following statement: Clearly, this is offered, after my conversation here with ... … According to Lussier, she added that she had been given immunity from prosecution and that she was a witness for the State against a man who "didn't do it."

Alamo Rent a Car, Inc. v. Galarza

306 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1997

An agreement to waive statutory remedies must “be clearly and unmistakably established, and contractual language alleged to constitute a waiver will not be read expansively.” Red Bank Reg'l Educ. … No reading of the Alamo arbitration clause clearly and unmistakably establishes that Galarza waived her right to pursue her LAD claim..

State v. Baluch

341 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2001

The judge denied the motions, reasoning: With regards to the spousal immunity.... … The State's argument quite clearly is that that evidence comes in under 404(b) in order to establish intent, identification and motive.

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

Wolff v. Mercer Medical Center

220 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 1987

Nevertheless, she is amenable to the establishment of a trust fund in an amount fixed by the court provided the fund is dedicated solely for educational purposes. … However, our statute clearly specifies that the age of the dependents (and therefore beneficiaries' relative periods of dependency) is only one of the factors to be considered.

Thomas v. Bergen Cty. Welfare Bd.

122 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 1973

The Bergen County Welfare Board was established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 44:1-10 et seq. and clearly qualifies as a "public body" within the intendment of the "Right to Know Law." … It clearly appears that the vote was taken at an executive session from which the public was excluded.

Cobra Products v. Federal Ins. Co.

317 N.J. Super. 392 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 1998

Generally, an insured bears the burden of establishing that a claim is within the basic policy terms. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals v. … Bell clearly was an employee at all times. He initiated the thefts and his dishonesty defeats the coverage.

Rivkin v. Dover Township Rent Leveling Board

277 N.J. Super. 559 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1994

On remand, the Board allowed an additional $25,-089.67 in qualifying capital improvements. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Christian Science Bd. of Directors v. Evans

191 N.J. Super. 411 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1983

Although these elements were clearly established in reference to the sale of goods and services, it has been held that such guidelines are equally applicable to religious associations or corporations. … The addition of an independent, or some other qualifying, adjective to the names of well known prior organizations has been held as insufficient to avoid confusion in cases involving both religious and fraternal organizations

Pbk v. Board of Educ.

343 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 2001

Further, as the Board noted in its exceptions, petitioner has not established, nor has he even claimed, that E.Y.' … Clearly it was directed at instances where the student is living with a parent or guardian claiming to be but not actually domiciled in the school district or, alternatively, where a child is placed with a person other than

IN THE MATTER OF OFFICER GREGORY DIGUGLIELMO AND NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2020

Moreover, NJIT enjoys the immunities and defenses of a "public entity" under the Tort Claims Act. See Bonitsis v. New Jersey Inst. of Tech., 363 N.J. Super. 505 (App. … In addition, NJIT's police officers clearly work for a "police force."

William Cano v. County Concrete Corporation

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 2026

We first address defendant's contention the court erred by holding defendant did not qualify for the "construction industry" exemption. … See R. 2:10-2 ("Any error or omission shall be disregarded . . . unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result. . . .").

State v. La Fera

61 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1960

The unlawful purpose or the unlawful means to obtain a lawful purpose must be clearly stated. … Its work may not be set at naught except in accordance with our established practice. If the State *512 believes it has a weak case, it may move under R. R. 3:11-3 (a) to dismiss.

F.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services & Ocean County Board of Social Services

374 N.J. Super. 126 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 2005

If a statute speaks clearly to the precise question at issue, the courts “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. … “The community spouse’s income is thus preserved for that spouse and does not affect the determination whether the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid.

In re the Suspension or Revocation of the License of Fichner

282 N.J. Super. 422 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1995

Three of the seven Board members were not statutorily qualified to hold office. … He contended on appeal that the statutory provisions establishing the method of selecting dental board members violated various provisions of the Pennsylvania state constitution. Ibid.

Williams v. Plainfield Bd. of Ed.

176 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 1980

Education, challenges the determination of the State Board of Education that the local board could properly transfer her from her tenured position to the position of elementary school principal (for which she was equally qualified … A tenure act provision clearly does not have the impact of a constitutional provision. Nor does its purpose in anywise equate with the purpose of the Compensation *164 Clause of the Constitution.

Magura v. Smith

131 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1974

With jurisdiction established the court must first determine whether sufficient grounds exist upon which plaintiff can base a contest. … This clearly was not done in the third district.