Case law

Melchionne v. City of Newark

60 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1960

Receive compensation within the range established for their new title. 3. … R.S. 11:22-4, as amended, specifically provides that the Commission may "from time to time as [it] may deem proper" revise the class assignment of a particular office or position ("class" here clearly meaning division; see

Estelle v. Bd. of Ed., Red Bank

26 N.J. Super. 9 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 1953

In each of these cases, the statute was held to afford immunity. In Terranella v. Union Bldg. etc. … The subject matter of the present action is clearly within the court's jurisdiction, without regard to any prior proceeding.

The Times of Trenton Pub. Corp. v. Lafayette Yard

368 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 2004

We agree that Lafayette Yard qualifies as a "public body" under both the public governmental function and expenditure of public funds tests. A. … Clearly the Constitution would stand in the way.

Matter of Adoption of Indian Child

219 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1987

This is the factual background established by the affidavits and documents presented on the motions. … Based solely on his mother's lineage, he did not have sufficient Indian blood to qualify for membership.

Ricker v. Lawson

155 N.J. Super. 536 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 1977

The opinion of the Commissioner as to the issue before us is clearly set forth in the General Assistance Manual. … A. 4:8-109), are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.

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.

Larrison v. Larrison

392 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2007

He further recognized that, at the time of his retirement, defendant was not qualified for any pension other than the disability pension. … The trial court may only modify or disregard the guidelines if good cause is established for doing so. R. 5:6A. An important aspect of establishing appropriate child support is determining the *863 parent's net income.

O'Shea v. Township of West Milford

410 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2009

That definition was clearly less encompassing than OPRA's scope of applicability under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. See O'Shea v. W. … These terms do not clearly encompass UFRs.

State v. Sparano

249 N.J. Super. 411 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1991

POINT IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING AND PERMITTING INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY HIGHAM TO TESTIFY. POINT V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL. … We cannot conclude that the brother's testimony was so prejudicial that it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. *422 Nor did it constitute inadmissible expert testimony.

Alsar Technology v. Zon. Bd. of Adj.

235 N.J. Super. 471 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 1989

Since the FCC regulation requires a "clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective", and there is no such clearly defined objective, the Nutley dish antenna ordinance is invalid under part (a) of the FCC regulation … Supreme Court has held that municipal entities possess no immunities under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 . See Owen v.

Education Law Center ex rel. Burke v. New Jersey Department of Education

396 N.J. Super. 634 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2007

Further, the Court gave examples of qualifying interests, such as “a citizen’s concern about a public problem.” Ibid. … Plaintiff clearly satisfies this first aspect. We turn now to the second prong.

Albert v. Perry

14 N.J. Eq. 540 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 15, 1862

This it is true is usually done at the instance of the mother, but the principle is clearly recognised; and the court, in selecting a guardian to represent the parent, and to exercise pro tanto his rights, will be equally … And without defining, or attempting to define the extent of departure from the line of virtuous conduct or of moral rectitude that may be established by the evidence, it is enough to say that it justified the conclusion of

IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR ATLANTIC COUNTY FREEHOLDER DISTRICT 3 (L-3929-20, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2021

A-1205-20 22 "[T]he word 'any' clearly is synonymous with the word 'all.'" In re Ordinance 04-75, 192 N.J. 446, 461 (2007). … Zappile's testimony and asserts the expert would have established there were insufficient votes to overcome the margin of victory.

Burkhart v. Public Employees Retirement System

158 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1978

On October 9 Garofalo was told by the Division that he could obtain credit if he could qualify under N. J. 8. … An employee, otherwise qualified under N. J. 8.

Bantam Books, Inc. v. Melko

25 N.J. Super. 292 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 1953

The first case actually to establish literary obscenity as an offense was Regina v. Read, 11 Mod. 143 ( K.B. 1708). … And the court points out that portions of many ancient and modern authors — esteemed and established in literature for all time — would also be offensive.

New Jersey Ass'n of Independent Insurance Agents v. Hospital Service Plan

128 N.J. Super. 472 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1974

AIM employed no physicians and made no contracts with hospitals, and its contract clearly discloses that it was itself rendering or furnishing no' such service. … Clearly, as to the “hospitalization” services and supplies (items 1 to 9 in Art.

Baran v. Clouse Trucking, Inc.

225 N.J. Super. 230 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1988

Defense counsel pointed out that the depositions of defendants Schilling and Clouse clearly controverted any co-lessee arrangement and that Clouse Trucking, Inc. was only an accommodation signer of the lease. *235 We agree … We agree, however, with defense counsel who argued to the motion judge that even as a co-lessee there is no New Jersey law which would impose a duty upon defendant to establish the competence or fitness of Schilling to operate

Matter of KLF

275 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1993

Where the Legislature has clearly spoken, the court may not ignore the Legislature's intent and must give full force and effect to it. … The court's threshold concern here is the meaning which attaches to the phrase "any party"; that is, whether the qualifying word "any" has been interjected merely so as to reflect the inclusion of all parties irrespective

Tinsman v. Parsekian

65 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1961

that the motor vehicle was at the time said accident occurred, in the possession of some person other than the owner without the owner's consent and that the identity of such person cannot be ascertained, any qualified person … We think clearly not. We detect sound public policy in the legislative requirement, as read literally.

Laufer v. US Life Ins. Co.

385 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2006

Therefore, Laufer has established the adequacy of representation requirement of Rule 4:32-1(a)(4). … Consequently, this case qualifies for class certification under Rule 4:32-1(b)(2). II U.S.