Case law

Cellucci v. Bronstein

277 N.J. Super. 506 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 6, 1994

In exchange for the absolute liability imposed on the employer, the Act grants immunity from common law negligence suits by employees. Ibid. … A lawyer's liability for malpractice cannot be established on an expert's premise of "I know it when I see it."

Henningsen v. Township of Randolph

214 N.J. Super. 82 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1986

We disagree that a special reason was established, as that prerequisite for a subsection (d) variance has been defined in the case law. … Such result would be contrary to established fundamentals of sound zoning. In Mahler v. Borough of Fair Lawn, 94 N.J.

Pfender v. Torres

336 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2001

The majority began its analysis by noting that "to overcome the work-product privilege the moving party must establish: (1) that he has substantial need of the requested documents; and (2) that he is unable, without undue … If accurate, those statements clearly suggest that he was driving faster and that he saw Mrs. Pfender earlier and at a time when with due care he might well have been able to avoid striking her.

Dougherty ex rel. Dougherty v. Department of Human Services

179 N.J. Super. 541 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1981

. § 1396 et seq., establishes a program commonly known as “Medicaid.” … It also establishes optional categories which a state may elect to make available to such persons.

Joseph v. Lesnevich

56 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1959

The authorities cited in the brief submitted on behalf of the bank clearly sustain the propriety of the dismissal of the claim against it. See First National Bank v. Goldberg, supra ; Gruntal v. … The court applied the theory suggested by Professor Ames that the doctrine of tacking adverse possession, firmly established with relation to land (see, e.g., O'Brien v.

Menake v. Menake

348 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 2002

Clearly, this pension will not be earned on the 20th anniversary of defendant's entry into the service. … We do not foreclose that possibility in the event, on remand, the parties choose to pursue this issue and establish an appropriate record.

Davis v. DEVEREUX FOUNDATION

414 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2010

II A Plaintiffs claim that our case law has already established the proposition that charitable institutions housing and caring for the mentally disabled have a duty of care to their clients that is non-delegable. … The Court's opinion focuses primarily on the meaning of the CSAA, its relationship to the CIA, and whether the CIA provides immunity for intentional torts. Hardwicke, supra, 188 N.J. at 82-100, 902 A .2d 900 .

Ferraro v. City of Long Branch

314 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1998

Ferraro of his rights, privileges and immunities secured by the laws and regulations governing municipal employment in the classified service in the State of New Jersey and more specifically deprived him of the rights and … In order to establish a violation of Title II of the ADA by these defendants, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he or she “has a disability;” (2) “is otherwise qualified for the employment or benefit”; (3) that he or she was

Shuster v. Board of Review

396 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2007

imminent, her leaving work because she was eventually going to be discharged and needed to look for new employment was not a sufficient cause for leaving the ranks of the employed to join the ranks of the unemployed to qualify … implied legislative policies; (3) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (4) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

Mef v. Abf

393 N.J. Super. 543 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2007

After spending down his assets, he qualified as a medically needy person for payment of his nursing home expenses by Medicaid. … His wife, M.E.F., received $576 per month from Social Security as her sole source of independent income—an amount that was clearly inadequate for her support.

In Re Kuebler

106 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 10, 1969

(Italics ours) Fairview Cemetery Company maintains that it qualifies under this exemption as a "charitable" and as a "benevolent" organization. Obviously, it does not qualify under any of the other specified categories. … This clearly indicates that "charitable institutions," as such, are not deemed to include "cemetery companies."

Franzblau v. Capital Securities Co.

2 N.J. Super. 517 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1949

The plan itself, transmitted to the stockholders in advance of the meeting, clearly indicates the intent to make the plan mandatory. … The proofs before the court establish that the required vote was given to the changes here under attack.

M. Alfieri Co. v. State

269 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 1994

In a similar vein, Alfieri’s reliance on L.1987, c. 129, § 11 is clearly misplaced. … The legislative classification clearly satisfies that test.

Kelly v. Berlin

300 N.J. Super. 256 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1997

Moreover, all of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). … Toder could be established by the common knowledge doctrine or by res ipsa loquitur.

Hyland v. Ponzio

159 N.J. Super. 233 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 1978

It seems inconceivable that the Legislature intended to establish one standard for the issuance of a license and another for its renewal or revocation. … Such a construction is clearly contrary to the equity and spirit of the Civil Service Act.

State v. Crouch

225 N.J. Super. 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 16, 1988

The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner. See King v. United States, 69 App.D.C. 10 , 98 F. 2d 291, 296 . … In Battle, we clearly noted: The underlying problem here, as we see it, lies in the erroneous concept of the indictment.

State v. Finn

175 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1980

To enforce a stipulation which prevents defendant from introducing rebuttal testimony by his own expert is to deny him the fundamental right to present witnesses and to establish a defense. … Defendant must be able to present his own equally qualified, equally scientific expert who is conversant with the method and mechanisms of polygraph techniques and who will have standing in the eyes of a jury to criticize

DIANA STEVENS VS. COUNTY OF HUDSON (L-3792-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 2020

Plaintiff maintains that Iqbal is not entitled to qualified immunity under the NJCRA. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Lom-Ran Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection

163 N.J. Super. 376 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1978

Here the record clearly establishes that prior to imposition of the ban no one had obtained a building permit or other approval covering any construction on the lot in issue. … Our review of the record establishes that the remaining contentions of the appellant are clearly without merit, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D)(E), and that the order of the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection

In Re Commitment of RS

339 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 2001

It is also this Court's opinion that on the record here, it is clearly established that these tests are admissible or can be used by an expert in creating expert testimony under the Frye [v. … The burden to "clearly establish" each of these methods is on the proponent. [ State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. at 170 , 699 A. 2d 596 (citations omitted).]