Case law

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

Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.

225 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1988

That a biochemist is not a qualified expert pursuant to Evid.R. 56 to testify generally as to human cancer causation. *489 2.) … Testimony in the Rule 8 hearing clearly demonstrates the wide ranging scientific study of cancer.

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

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.

City of Plainfield v. Courier-News & Daily Journal

146 N.J. Super. 188 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1974

The proofs for The Courier-News established that circulation in Plainfield approximate 8800 daily copies, and according to the undisputed testimony of John J. … On the question of newspapers qualified as legal newspaper, N. J. S.

State v. Morris

242 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1990

In Tate , the Court rejected defendant's claim that he needed marijuana to treat his quadriplegia and that he was immune from prosecution under the necessity doctrine. … The aggravating factors clearly justified the imposition of the parole ineligibility term.

Arons v. New Jersey Network

342 N.J. Super. 168 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2001

Plaintiff was of the view that her candidacy was upsetting to individuals in the education “establishment” and to attorneys. … In addition, the Legislature has clearly indicated that it views the issue as one which cannot be handled by mathematical comparisons of broadcast time allocations.

Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.

208 N.J. Super. 697 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 1986

If, however, the uniqueness of the human voice were established, it would not necessarily follow that the voiceprint technique is capable of detecting that uniqueness. … Clearly, the statements made by Bodell were within the hearsay exception of Evid.R. 63(9)(a), as a person "responsible for the actual maintenance work at the restaurant."

Zimmerman v. Mun. Clerk of Tp. of Berkeley

201 N.J. Super. 363 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1985

. : My construction of this series of statutes clearly brings me to the conclusion that you cannot have a legal petition for the removal of more than one individual — period. … This contravenes the well established rule of statutory construction that a legislative provision should not be read in isolation or in a way which sacrifices what appears to be the scheme of the statute as a whole.

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield v. State

425 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2012

To qualify as an HSC, a corporation must be “organized, without capital stock and not for profit, for the purpose of (1) establishing, maintaining and operating a nonprofit health service plan and (2) supplying services in … However, it is undisputed that plaintiff was the only HSC in the state and the only such carrier to qualify for the l/8th Rule.

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.

Riley v. Keenan

406 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 2009

She was unable to return to her sales job and qualified for Social Security disability (SSI) commencing summer 2003. … By the time Wells left the establishment at 4:30 p.m., he saw Keenan drink at least two beers.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carriere

170 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1979

The Commissioner of Insurance is hereby authorized and empowered to establish, by rule or regulations, the amounts and terms of income continuation insurance to be provided pursuant to this section. … As such, she falls clearly within the category of "named insured" under the regulation.

In Re Kaplan

178 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 1981

The Legislature has clearly denoted the penalizing mechanism of N.J.S.A. 30:4D-17(c) (1976) as a "civil" one. … [state law] subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws...."

In re J.E.

432 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 2013

It also found as a fact that “the evidence fail[ed] to establish that defendant abused or neglected [the minor] while he lived with her in Guatemala.” Ibid. … The facts of this case are vastly different and clearly distinguishable from D.C.

Lakewood Tp. Mun. Util. v. S. Lakewood Water Co.

129 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1974

" appraiser, and Rosen was not qualified. … Since we have held that the Authority had the right to exercise the option, it is clearly liable to pay for the purchase of the water company's assets. We see no reason for withholding adjudication to that effect.

Conrad v. Robbi

341 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2001

None of the parties have cited Kristiansen, although the Supreme Court in that case clearly endorsed the holding in Thompson . … The Board was clearly on notice that Conrad had a permanent injury with progressive symptoms.

In re Y.L.

437 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 2014

The Board discovered that Y.L. had been arrested for prostitution, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1, in a massage therapy establishment in 2004. The charge was later dismissed. … Y.L. is otherwise qualified for a license. 1 *412 Our scope of review of an administrative agency action is limited and highly deferential.

Murray v. Newark Housing Authority

311 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 1998

And clearly, other provisional boiler operators that were younger than plaintiff 8 were retained after the NHA’s reduction in force, where *175 as plaintiff was not. 9 Having established a prima facie case of discrimination … To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.