Case law

New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. State

382 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 2005

The criteria for designating underserved areas are established in N.J.S.A. 18A:71C-35. The agreement is clearly delineated and circumscribed by legislation. … Whether an expert is qualified can determine the outcome of a case. If, on the day of trial, a proffered expert is not qualified in a case requiring expert testimony, it would be outcome determinative.

Gross v. Iannuzzi

459 N.J. Super. 296 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2019

The legislative history clearly expressed the intent to allow flood-safe construction, notwithstanding local zoning laws. … In amending the Act, our Legislature has clearly determined to use a different definition of "structure." Further, the Act does not require a finding of "substantial" damage.

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.

Ayres v. Dauchert

130 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 1974

II, par. 3 of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution, that every qualified voter "shall be entitled to vote for all officers that now are or hereafter may be elective by the people * * *." … The import of the words used should be "enlarged or restrained" to comport with long-established policy, unless a legislative intent repugnant to that policy is clearly manifest. Bayonne Textile Corp. v.

Affiliated Distillers Brands Corp. v. Sills

106 N.J. Super. 458 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1969

Plaintiff argues that the legislation under attack was clearly and exclusively designed and promoted for the benefit of the members of New Jersey Wine and Spirit Wholesalers Association, and invalid for lack of a sufficient … One class of race courses may be established without regard to conditions at all; another class can only be established by submitting to the imposition of a condition which may be either of difficult or impossible performance

Holmes v. American Society, C., Animals

123 N.J. Eq. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 1938

The other executor in the will failed to qualify. Instructions are also sought. The decedent left surviving him, in addition to the complainant, his wife, the defendant, Thurston S. … The American National Red Cross, supra , the court said (at p. 16 ): "It is well established in law that a misnomer of a legatee or devisee will not render the legacy or devise void if the legatee or devisee intended by the

Lowe v. Zarghami

305 N.J. Super. 90 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 1997

Defendant’s deposition testimony clearly indicates that he enjoyed, and was allowed by UMDNJ, complete autonomy when exercising his staff privileges at KMH. Cf. Sloan v. … Ctr., 298 N.J.Super. 116 , 689 A.2d 148 (App.Div.1997), we recently considered whether house-staff residents, employed by UMDNJ but assigned to Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, were public employees entitled to immunity

Lasky v. MOORESTOWN TP.

425 N.J. Super. 530 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 2012

The trial judge instructed the jury that it was plaintiff's "burden of proof ... to establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence." … Contrary to these clearly expressed principles, plaintiff claims that because he was disabled and unable to access the park, he was entitled as a matter of law to both injunctive and monetary relief.

SDG v. Inventory Control Co.

178 N.J. Super. 411 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 1981

Clearly, the requirement of a month's notice is intended to afford the landlord a reasonable opportunity to secure another tenant. See e.g., Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. L. Albert & Son, Inc., 26 N.J. … With respect to the first of these claims, the uncontradicted testimony of the landlord's principal established that a portion of the carpeting had been burned and stained with ink spots.

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.

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

Mount v. Trustees of Pub. Emp. Retirement Syst.

133 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1975

The grant, in such circumstances, was clearly premature and improvident and warranted the board's exercise of its inherent power to take requisite corrective action. … But this is clearly not tantamount to a binding determination of that prerequisite.

Vreeland v. Dawson

55 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1959

This is not an absolute, but a conditional and qualified promise. … Plaintiff has established her present ability to repay, and hence her promise is rendered enforceable if such relief were sought by the defendants.

K.A.F. v. D.L.M.

437 N.J. Super. 123 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2014

Because of the clearly contested facts, which the judge and the parties acknowledge, we recite only a brief history of the relationships of the parties as gleaned from the materials presented. … While the cause of action brought by D.M. is not “immune to the summary judgment procedure,” A.F. v.

DeMaria v. JEB BROOK, LLC

372 N.J. Super. 138 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 2003

Clearly, the Board's conduct during the hearings, at best, was confused. … A court did not interfere, however, when board members, although acknowledging their interaction with interested parties in the same circumstance, clearly established their resolution of the issue was based upon evidence

State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Wagner

79 N.J. Super. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1963

Thus, the New York permit may qualify a laboratory to perform only limited types of analysis. … N.J.S.A. 45:9-42.2(c) defines a bio-analytical laboratory as "any place, establishment or institution organized and operated primarily for the performance of chemical, microscopic, serological, parasitological, bacteriological

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency

445 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2016

Here, Mother's statements were admissible against Stepfather because they qualified under the hearsay exception for statements against interest. … Since our decision in Cope, our Supreme Court in Matulewicz established additional requirements for the admission of expert diagnoses and opinions within business records, and those requirements

Podias v. Mairs

394 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2007

As to the latter, the judge reasoned: I find that the Plaintiff has not established sufficient facts to permit a rational factfinder to resolve any dispute in issue in favor of the Plaintiff concerning the actions of Mr. … In New Jersey, the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1, offers immunity from tort liability not just to "health care licensees", L. 1963, c. 140, but to "any individual" who renders emergency assistance.

Board of Educ. v. EDUC. ASS'N

251 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1990

The grievance in this case qualifies for arbitration in two respects: health benefits are a term and condition of employment and the grievance requires an interpretation of Article 28. … The Judge ruled "that the meaning of the disputed provision is clearly the plain facial meaning merely of paying the premium to the carrier."

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. YVONNE JEANNOTTE-RODRIGUEZ STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARTA I. GALVAN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LISA FERRARO (19-06-0446, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 25, 2021

The judge held that "clearly infringed upon the grand jury's decision - making function." … The complicating factor in this case is that no New Jersey statute establishes a licensing scheme for medical assistants.