Case law

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

Hammer v. Local No. 211

34 N.J. Super. 34 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 1954

Outstanding rights and immunities which the law vests in them are involved. … Meadowmoor Dairies, Inc., 312 U.S. 287 , 61 S.Ct. 552 , 85 L.Ed. 836 (1941), is clearly applicable.

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency Vs.

441 N.J. Super. 585 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 2015

Applying those principles, the Court held that expert testimony regarding "battered woman's syndrome" was admissible to help establish a claim of self-defense in a homicide case. Id. at 187. … Both professionals were qualified to undertake their respective tasks.

State of New Jersey v. Taviaus Wilson

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2024

Based on that history and tradition, we reject the novel proposition that motorists can unilaterally render containers in a vehicle immune from automobile- exception searches by locking them. … We are satisfied that under Cohen's "entirety of the interior" ruling, a glove box clearly falls within the interior region of a vehicle. Ibid.

State v. Shabazz

400 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2005

For the reasons stated below, the State's motion to permit the use of the "black box" data and expert testimony at time of trial is granted because the State has clearly established, by a high level of proof, the general … The burden to "clearly establish" reliability of the evidence is on the proponent. State v. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170 , 699 A. 2d 596 (citing State v.

McDarby v. Merck & Co., Inc.

401 N.J. Super. 10 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 29, 2008

Edward Scolnick, the President of Merck's Research Division, wrote an e-mail about the VIGOR data that stated: "The CV events are clearly there." … Although statutory immunity could be claimed by a manufacturer as an affirmative defense, id. at 96 , if immunity were overcome by evidence of fraud, a plaintiff's entire common-law claim would then be recognized.

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

State v. Turcotte

239 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1990

We concluded that nothing in the regulations suggests that off-track racing stables are immune from the administrative search authorized by the regulation. Id. at 285-286 , 428 A. 2d 947 . … Finally, Detective Makuka, assigned and trained to carry out the equine testing procedure, was more qualified to understand and adhere to the stated scope limitations of the regulations than other law enforcement officers

State v. Bradley

174 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1980

It was Birdsall’s opinion that Bradley was clearly implying that he was a planner. Bradley, on the other hand, emphatically denied representing himself as a licensed planner to the board. … The trial judge found that the State had failed to establish that the act was violated and dismissed the order to show cause and complaint.

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).]

State v. Long

204 N.J. Super. 469 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 1985

There are established accepted maxims for the calculation of intervals and similarly proven means for random selection of starting numbers. … The sensible test of weighing competing considerations so succinctly and clearly set forth in State v.

MARLENE WITTER VS. THE LEAGUERS, INC. (L-0074-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2020

Where counsel requests additional time for discovery, they "should establish that he or she did make effective use of the time permitted under the rules." Ibid. … for immunity under the statute.

Roxbury State Bank v. the Clarendon

129 N.J. Super. 358 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1974

Further, the record of the trial does not clearly indicate the depletion of Clarendon assets by Douglas and Codella. … The case is far from authority for the claimed immunity of plaintiff bank here. The testimony at trial shows that Mr.

In Re Pipes

329 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 2000

to licensure as a New Jersey real estate broker as established at N.J.S.A. 45:15-9 and N.J.A.C. 11:5-1.3. … Clearly Mr. Pipes meets the educational and good character requirements.

In Re Estate of Kolacy

332 N.J. Super. 593 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 2000

Isaac Kligman of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility are fully credible and that they firmly establish the facts set forth above. … On the other hand, it would clearly be unfortunate for those federal adjudicatory processes to reach a result based in part upon an incorrect determination by federal tribunals of New Jersey law.

Stomel v. City of Camden

383 N.J. Super. 615 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2006

Current law adequately and clearly expresses the form of government in question, and to infer that the mayor is a member of the governing body is misleading in that he has no voting rights and, indeed, need not attend council … Different tests, each bearing upon the degree of control an employer exercises over an individual, are used by New Jersey courts to determine whether an individual qualifies as an employee.

Matter of Petition of Paterson Counseling Ctr.

237 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1989

Consequently, the Department encouraged its employees who were involved in conducting drug treatment programs to establish private non-profit corporations to perform this responsibility. … Fourth, as indicated by the discussion in section I of this opinion, the directive was not "expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from" the Act.

Whitfield v. Whitfield

222 N.J. Super. 36 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1987

Clearly, this pension will not be earned on the 20th anniversary of defendant's entry into the service. … Indeed, in other areas of the law, it is well established that mere difficulty in determining the quantum of value of a party's claim is no reason to bar that claim if it is otherwise established. Sandler v.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TYWAUN S. HEDGESPETH (16-07-2215 AND 16-07-2216, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2020

We noted that "[t]aken in context, 'confined' clearly refers to the custodial portion of a defendant's criminal sentence, and is not a more general reference to any deprivation of physical liberty." … Rule 2:10-2 directs reviewing courts to disregard "[a]ny error or omission . . . unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result."

In Re Application of Wellhofer

16 N.J. Super. 60 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1951

At oral argument this court asked counsel for precedents for establishing petitioners' claims. … One part may qualify another so as to restrict its operation otherwise than the natural construction would require if it stood alone. Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8 th ed. ) 124 et seq.