Case law

State v. Winne

21 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 1952

Thus, it has made it immune from civil litigation. … he is likewise immune, for the sake of the free exercise of his discretion.

North Jersey Suburbanite Co., Inc. v. State

154 N.J. Super. 126 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1977

We concur in the trial judge's findings that the results of a survey testified to by a plaintiff's witness in support of an alleged delivery-readership equation did not reliably establish that proposition because neither … originally enacted as L. 1935, c. 177, § 1, was accompanied by this statement: The object of this act is to limit the selection of newspapers for official advertising to actual newspapers printed and published in the State and qualified

D'Arc v. D'Arc

157 N.J. Super. 553 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1978

The trial court had concluded "that the State had failed to meet its burden of establishing general acceptance of the voiceprint method." Id. at 546 . … The proofs offered in this case clearly fall far short of the test enunciated in Frye . Not only is there an absence of proof of "general acceptance" by the scientific community, but the contrary appears to be the fact.

Joseph J. Emmons, III, Etc. v. Elmwood Hills Healthcare Center, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 2026

Courts cannot "rewrite a plainly written statute or . . . presume that the Legislature meant something other than what it conveyed in its clearly expressed language." … Thus, plaintiff does not qualify as a prevailing party under the NHA and is not entitled to statutory counsel fees. C.

Bryant v. City of Atlantic City

309 N.J. Super. 596 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1998

Qualified businesses within such zones shall be eligible for certain “awards,” tax exemptions, and tax credits. N.J.S.A 52:27H-74 to -79. … As the delineated project area was clearly identified as the Huron North site, no relocation of residents is required in that site, since none lived there.

State v. Bander

106 N.J. Super. 196 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1969

VI, § II, par. 3 of the Constitution, as clearly established by Chief Justice Vanderbilt's opinion in N.J. State Bar Ass'n v. Northern N.J. Mortgage Associates, supra, 22 N.J., at p. 198. … A reading of the majority opinion and of the Wisconsin statute referred to indicates that the atmosphere in Wisconsin and the attitude in New Jersey are vitally different, because it clearly suggests that in Wisconsin there

Progressive Action Coordinating Team v. City of Orange

111 N.J. Super. 245 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1970

Ct. at 958 ] Although there was no majority opinion, the Supreme Court having been divided over the proper scope to be accorded to the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause, it is clear from the separate … Justice Douglas, who said in part: *249 We hold that § 3 of this ordinance is unconstitutional on its face, for it establishes a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment which is

Hitchcock v. Board of Review

159 N.J. Super. 40 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 1978

The New Jersey agency combined these earnings with New Jersey earn *43 ings of $518 over a five-week period and thus concluded that claimant did not qualify for benefits under the statutory requirement of either 20 base weeks … This contention is clearly without merit. The pertinent legislation and regulations establish the conclusive effect of the Pennsylvania determination as the adjudication of the transferring state.

Hampton v. Dept. of Corrections

336 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 2001

The challenged policies are clearly quasi-legislative exercises designed to regulate the essential process of inmate classification. They establish substantive standards affecting the inmates in that regard. … Every agency action which qualifies as a rule-making by the standards of Metromedia must conform with APA requirements.

Rene v. Phillips

94 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1967

(at pp. 194r-195) And further: “[W]e cannot find either in section 14 or elsewhere in the act an intent to qualify the unconditional remedies clearly granted the Board by the act against an application for payment of a default … A. 39 :6-74 is for the purpose of permitting the Board to participate through counsel in order to assure that only where the liability of defendant has been established shall a claim against the Board be allowed, and then

C.A. v. Bentolila

428 N.J. Super. 115 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 2012

The purpose of this report, DVl, was to record an event that qualified for further investigation. According to the Hospital’s counsel, the Apgar Score was apparently the qualified event that prompted DVl. … Furthermore, the record does not clearly establish that the round-table meeting that generated DV2 was exclusively conducted pursuant to the procedures under the PSA. The record reflects that Mutter wore two hats.

Fanoli v. Sea-Land Services, Inc.

251 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1991

The rule is well established that a trial judge should not disturb a damage award unless it is "so disproportionate to the injury and resulting disability shown as to shock [the] conscience." See Ryan v. … shall be deemed the employer of a subcontractor's employees only if the subcontractor fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by section 904 of this title. [3] By a 1984 amendment, irrelevant to the appeal, immunity

SJOBERG EX REL. SJOBERG v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.

260 N.J. Super. 159 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1992

the fifteen-year-old infant plaintiff, Alicia Sjoberg, was at the time she sustained injuries in an automobile accident in Florida on October 31, 1988, a member of her father's "family residing in his household" thereby qualifying … even if she nonetheless established residency at her mother's home.

Doe v. Klein

143 N.J. Super. 134 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1976

These decisions clearly establish that the disclosure of grand jury minutes may be ordered when there is a showing of special and compelling circumstances sufficient to overcome the policy against disclosure. … Clearly, the compelling circumstances or need for the grand jury testimony was there established.

Asplund v. Marjohn Corp.

66 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1961

To resolve the uncertainty, Graham dispatched another letter, dated July 31, 1959, advising Asplund that "another" qualifying commitment had been obtained. … We therefore must consider whether the proposed mortgagee offered by defendant qualified as a "lending institution," in the sense indicated, at the time under consideration.

Monroe v. City of Paterson

318 N.J. Super. 505 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 1999

There is nothing in the record to suggest that Santiago's operation of the City's vehicle was cloaked with an immunity under the Tort Claims Act. … Justice Garibaldi identified an unacceptable anomaly: If an insured chooses a $1,000 or $2,500 deductible in exchange for a premium reduction, the Legislature, clearly, did not intend that that insured would be able to sue

SIMMEL EX REL. SIMMEL v. New Jersey Coop Co.

47 N.J. Super. 509 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1957

Clearly the trial judge should not send the issue to the jury merely because the child has suffered a permanent injury. … Here it appears "clearly and unequivocally" ( Hartpence v.

Romano v. Kimmelman

190 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1983

We conclude that the complaint does not establish a right to relief under § 1983, there is an adequate remedy at law for plaintiffs and others similarly situated and the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable to … plaintiffs were not parties to the Lopat case, had no privity relationship with the Lopat defendants, and more importantly, present no compelling basis for applying the evidentiary ruling of Lopat to their cases which are clearly

TL v. DDD, Dept. of Human Serv.

243 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 6, 1990

Pursuant to established procedure, DDD intake worker Susan Schaeffer came to T.L.' … The juxtaposition of "temporary" with the earlier "lifelong" qualifier may be relevant.

State v. Alvarez

318 N.J. Super. 137 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1999

Alvarez and, in fact, the prejudicial value of that clearly would outweigh its probative value. … It is undeniable that the federal statute is generic in the sense that it identifies qualifying prior convictions by penalty, while N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7 specifies the qualifying convictions by name.