Case law

Standard Oil, Etc., Union v. ESSO RESEARCH, CO.

38 N.J. Super. 106 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 1955

It further proposed that Senior Operators, Operators and Senior Laboratory Assistants who qualified, be considered "on an individual basis for appointment, at a salary to be fixed on a merit basis, as Senior Technicians * … The ground upon which the courts will intrude in a matter of this kind has been clearly established.

Tri-State Ship Repair & Dry Dock Co. v. City of Perth Amboy

349 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2002

In our judgment, plaintiff clearly failed in that regard. … restated the considerations that are generally applied when a court is asked to consider the timeliness of a challenge in lieu of prerogative writs: This Court previously has defined three general categories of cases that qualify

Joshua Abrams v. Richard Isolda

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2025

The doctrine of litigation immunity provides: A-0561-23 10  [A]n absolute immunity exists … Therefore, Isolda is entitled to litigation immunity regarding these claims.

D.S. v. Board of Education

188 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 15, 1983

The Education Act, however, is not silent on what qualifies as a free appropriate public education (FAPE). … The State Board tells us that, prior to enactment of the state regulation, responsibility for the maintenance of residentially-placed handicapped children was not clearly defined and varied by district and school.

Bankers Trust Co. v. NY, ETC., FOR ANIMALS

17 N.J. Super. 398 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1952

It is significant that the testator made two bequests to the league and clearly distinguished between them. … Eq. 548 ( Ch. 1933), which involved a fund insufficient to establish a home for aged men; the fund was divided equally between two established homes for the aged in Paterson, to be devoted exclusively to the care of men.

Adams v. Keystone Ins. Co.

264 N.J. Super. 367 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 1993

Clearly, the Legislature did not adopt N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.4 to state exactly the same proposition that it stated in N.J.S.A. 39:6A-3 and 39:6A-4. … Simmons' Estate, supra , already established the choice of law rule that should govern the interpretation of insurance contracts.

O'DONNELL v. Ahmed

363 N.J. Super. 44 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2003

A Management Order was agreed to by counsel, submitted to the court, executed and filed on September 7, 2001, establishing the discovery end date of October 12, 2002. … Clearly, merely advising the court in conclusory terms that the attorney and the client have hectic schedules does not qualify.

State v. Kane

335 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 2000

Whatever else may be said, we are convinced that a medical diagnosis of a broken nose does not necessarily qualify the harm committed as "serious bodily injury" under NERA. … But even assuming that such injury was established, the transcript is barren of evidence indicating that the victim's condition was protracted, prolonged or extended in time.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF AUGUSTIN NGWE MANDENG (CP-0192-2006, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2022

No. 6900, establishes the UN's immunity from legal process, and states: "The [UN] shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) Disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character … Immunity issues aside, the UN enjoys foreign sovereign status.

Barbera v. DiMartino

305 N.J. Super. 617 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1997

That much being said, we are convinced counts IV and V are clearly without merit and warrant no further opinion. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). … IV We do not question that plaintiffs April 1987 psychotic episode qualified as a handicap under the LAD.

Reyes v. Meadowlands Hosp. Med. Ctr.

355 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 2001

In Estate of Hussain , Judge Harper wrote: ... to establish precedent for the production of such files would severely prejudice the ability of St. … Furthermore, as noted by Judge Clyne in Bundy , although the Legislature has provided for immunity from civil liability to all persons serving as members of committees responsible for the evaluation and improvement of the

YWCA v. Bd. of Adj. Summit

134 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 18, 1975

The interpretation of an ordinance is a purely legal matter, clearly not treated as such by the board. … Thus, a group home would qualify as "one family" within the definition of a "single family house" under the ordinance. *391 To suggest that "families" composed of residents of group homes are to be distinguished from natural

Ffc, Ltd. v. New Jersey State Dol

316 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1998

Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that "[a] construction that will render any part of a statute inoperative, superfluous, or meaningless, is to be avoided." State v. … We have previously recognized that the Prevailing Wage Act is remedial legislation entitled to liberal construction to effectuate the public policy of this State to establish a prevailing wage level for workmen engaged in

Snyder v. I. Jay Realty Co.

53 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1958

It has become a commonplace to state that the traditional immunities of landowners and occupiers are giving way to the imposition of liability where there is a substantial foreseeability of harm to others likely to enter … It is a familiar principle that the burden of establishing the existence of a fact or circumstance is on the party relying thereon. See, e.g., Collins Realty Co. v. Sale, 104 N.J. Eq. 138, 142 ( E. & A. 1928).

Cavanagh v. MORRIS CTY. DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE

121 N.J. Super. 430 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 1972

Any special committee established by defendant must be considered a part of the Democratic Committee. … The language of N.J.S.A. 19:34-52 clearly prohibits such activity. *437 This statute cannot be given any other meaning. In interpreting statutory words, they are to be given their common usage. Ford Motor Co. v. N.J.

Sacks Realty Co. v. Batch

235 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1989

Nevertheless plaintiff has not evinced any ill-will or bad faith towards the tenants which even remotely would qualify as evidence that this action is a reprisal. … First, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.13 et seq. clearly and convincingly applies only to tenancies located in Atlantic City.

Hall v. St. Joseph's Hosp.

343 N.J. Super. 88 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2001

According to Shepard-Kegl, the three requirements of a qualified ASL interpreter are accuracy, confidentiality, and impartiality. … It is best for the qualified interpreter *1008 to be someone with no vested interest in the proceedings.

C.R. VS. M.T. (FV-08-0021-19, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2019

This doctrine requires our conclusion that the qualifying phrase applies only to "other substance" and not "intoxicant." … voluntarily – may support a finding that the victim could not consent, we consider the level of intoxication required to support such a finding. 6 It is 4 To be sure, the Legislature could have made this point more clearly

Spiewak v. Board of Education

180 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 1981

When she first began to work for the district, Spiewak’s employment was clearly part-time and her responsibilities limited to three hours of instruction a day. … The absence or availability of a special class facility in any district shall not be construed as relieving a board of education of the responsibility for providing education for any child who qualifies under this chapter

State v. Young

379 N.J. Super. 498 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 2005

However, the judge was "clearly convinced" that the aggravating factors outweighed the sole mitigating factor, and concluded that, "although defendant qualifies as a persistent offender, the Court has sufficient penal exposure … The Supreme Court held that resentencing defendant to a custodial term for the offenses affirmed on appeal would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, noting that "the decisions of this Court `clearly establish that a sentenc