Case law

Williams v. PEMBERTON TP. SCHOOLS

323 N.J. Super. 490 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1999

The revised version was dated November 7, 1995, clearly marked "Revised," and then placed in plaintiff's personnel file in lieu of the original. … In its opinion, it noted, however, that a plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which

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.

Naylor v. Harkins

27 N.J. Super. 594 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 1953

The record likewise entirely fails to establish that defendants entered into a conspiracy against plaintiffs. … In the absence of an express provision, guaranteeing immunity from second trial for the same offense, the right of interpretation and construction exists, and that right is vested in the Grand Chief Engineer.

Ott v. WEST NEW YORK TP.

92 N.J. Super. 184 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1966

Where, as here, the governing body has been qualified to act as the local public agency, it is clothed with all the authority conferred upon any other local public agency. … The discretion which is immune from review is an honest and not a purely arbitrary one.

State v. Cagno

409 N.J. Super. 552 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 2009

On June 13, 2002, after the judge granted Lombardino immunity, she held him in contempt upon his failure to testify after being ordered to do so. … Now, clearly, the State alleges Lombardino's contempt was in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Cohen v. Home Ins. Co.

230 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1989

We see no reason why this clearly stated provision does not control. … Obviously, then, a Home policyholder eligible for renewal under *84 N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3 and N.J.A.C. 11:3-8.1, et seq., is not qualified for JUA coverage.

JAMES CARIFI VS. TOWNSHIP OF PARSIPPANY (L-1681-18, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 23, 2021

immunity rather than absolute immunity." … Thus, King stands for the proposition that a complaining witness to a grand jury indictment who set the process in motion does not have absolute, but only qualified immunity. Id. at 587-88.

Rivera v. Westinghouse Elevator Co.

209 N.J. Super. 543 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1986

Defendant contends that: (1) "[p]laintiff did not establish a cause of action in negligence by which defendant Westinghouse can be found 100% liable for the death of Jose Rivera"; (2) "[t]he cumulative effect of the trial … Mitchell, 82 N.J. 336, 347 (1980), and that therefore it is clearly wrong and a miscarriage of justice. Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588, 599 (1977); R. 4:49-1(a). We agree.

City of Philadelphia v. Smith

169 N.J. Super. 156 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1979

In the circumstances here disclosed no state can be said to have a legitimate policy against payment of its neighbor's taxes, the obligation of which has been judicially established by courts to whose judgments in practically … portion of the judgment for these civil penalties from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, we apply "[t]he basic, controlling principle * * * that the forum must accord the foreign judgment the same degree of credit, status and immunity

Schmoll v. Creecy

104 N.J. Super. 126 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 1969

The majority held that illegitimate children are not "nonpersons"; they are human beings and clearly "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, and while a state has broad power in making classifications … He further noted that the bill failed to specify any limitation upon the time after the father's death within which a suit to establish paternity must be commenced.

O'Brien v. Telcordia Technologies

420 N.J. Super. 256 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2011

Plaintiff O'Brien Was Clearly Better Qualified Than Agelopoulos And Thus She Created A Genuine Issue Of Fact Regarding Pretext. D. … As such "but for" causation has to be established. ___ U.S. at ___, 129 S.Ct. at 2350-51 , 174 L.Ed. 2d at 128-29 .

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOELLE D. CARONNA STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FREDDY COLLADO (20-02-0221, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 3, 2021

immunity is not before us. … Indeed, as the AG pointed out, the knock-and-announce rule is a "clearly established" right. But the police violated the rule anyway.

B.H. v. State

400 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2008

The Work First New Jersey program established pursuant to this act incorporates and builds upon the fundamental concepts of the Family Development *426 Initiative established pursuant to P.L. 1991, c. 523 (C.44:10-19 et seq … Title IV-E eligibility and SSI eligibility are identified as factors that may affect whether a child qualifies for an adoption subsidy. N.JAC. 10:121-1.3(d)3-5.

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...."

Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Township Rent Leveling Board

261 N.J. Super. 357 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1992

qualify for hardship relief. … exceeded his gross annual income by a certain percentage for the last calendar year in order to qualify for an increase.

Alpine Country Club v. Borough of Demarest

354 N.J. Super. 387 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 2002

The judge ruled, So if you—if you want to just generally establish who Mr. Mavroudis is that Mr. … As the record clearly indicates, Mavroudis' conversations with municipalities' appraiser were in an entirely different context: BY MR. LANGAN [municipalities' counsel]: Q: Mr. Mavroudis did Mr.

State v. Mierzwa

420 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2011

[a]nd I'm going to see whether you qualify financially. If you do, I'll assign a public defender to represent you. … Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 1:36-3 (2011) ("Clearly, when an appellate court has decided an issue, its decision, even if not final in terms of the controversy, establishes the law of the case.").

Es v. Division of Med. Ass. & Health Serv.

412 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 2010

Implementation of this congressional policy ensures that only applicants whose income and resources fall below a specified level will qualify. III. … uniformly to all similarly situated persons; (3) [it] is designed to operate only in future cases, that is, prospectively; (4) [it] prescribes a legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly

Gould v. Winokur

98 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1968

Div. 1960) — where it is clear that plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, no purpose is served by prolonging his hope against hope. … Bell, supra , and, more clearly, Becker v. Eisenstodt, supra , and Sanzari v. Rosenfeld, supra .

Sarner v. Union Tp.

55 N.J. Super. 523 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1959

The uniformity that is required is to prevent the granting to any person, or class of persons, the privileges or immunities which upon the same terms do not belong to all persons. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3 d … The insertion by the Senate of section 5 into the Assembly bill, followed by the insertion of section 6, clearly indicates that the bill was not acceptable to the Senate as drawn.