Case law

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).]

DAMIEN ROSE BRUNO VS. JEFFERSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC MADELYN CALDERON VS. JEFFERSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC (L-3060-14 AND L-3061-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 2020

The TCA re-established sovereign immunity after common law immunity had been abrogated by the Supreme Court in Willis v. Department of Conservation & Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 536-41 (1970). … Defendants also were immune from liability because the alleged failure-to-arrest was "clearly discretionary" and not a ministerial act.

Yellow Cab Co. v. State

126 N.J. Super. 81 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 27, 1973

Employees who basically drive vehicles and who only incidentally or occasionally makes sales do not qualify for this exemption. … We do not read that provision as clearly evidencing a congressional intention to displace all state regulation in the field of hours and wages.

SMB Associates v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

264 N.J. Super. 38 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1993

Additionally, there were no substantive criteria established before the administrative proceedings for determining how to qualify for a “conceptual approval.” … It does not establish how the proposal might have been revised so as to qualify for a waiver.

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.

In re the Estate Ehrlich

427 N.J. Super. 64 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2012

under Section 3, it would have, we submit, declared so expressly as did, for instance, the Colorado Legislature in enacting its version of UPC § 2-503 and *73 N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3. 3 The fact that the Legislature chose not to qualify … As the motion judge noted, in its form, the document “is clearly a professionally prepared Will and complete in every respect except for a date and its execution.”

FRANCIS v. Harris

100 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1968

Although state plans must meet certain standards and conditions *317 prescribed by federal law and must be approved by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in order to qualify for federal grants-in-aid (see 42 U.S.C.A … Hellams, supra, is clearly distinguishable.

Edgemere at Somerset v. Johnson

143 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1976

Pfaender Director Office of Loan Management The subject housing units qualify as an "unsubsidized insured project," and the pertinent portions of the agency's regulations authorizing the action taken by HUD are as follows … Further, it is clearly impossible for plaintiff in any manner to be in compliance with both the HUD minimum and the Board maximum.

State v. DiFrancisco

232 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1988

It continued, however, to say: In addition, we hold that the results of a breathalyzer test shall be generally admissible in evidence when the breathalyzer instrument is in proper working order, is administered by a qualified … Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467 (1987), held that a man, clearly drunk, who entered his car, started to put his keys in the ignition and was prevented from doing so by an arresting officer, was operating the car.

M.G. v. S.M.

457 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 26, 2018

Clearly, [the] stock[s] were *323 performance options and a reward for staying with my employer and a reward for future performance. … To refute such a presumption, the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear " 'the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset.' " [ Id. at 609 , 660 A.2d 485 (alteration

Baker v. LABOR & INDUSTRY DEP'T

183 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1982

Appellant did not qualify as an employee with 17 base weeks during the brief controlling period and to be eligible for benefits had to demonstrate she "earned" $2,200 or more during that time. … Thus, to the extent appellant, after taking maternity leave, received remuneration in the form of sick days, vacation days and personal days, the statutory purposes clearly are not served by giving her disability benefits

Passaic County Board of Social Services ex rel. T.M. v. A.S.

442 N.J. Super. 59 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 2015

He has been qualified in roughly fifteen states in the Northeast as an expert in the application and interpretation of genetic test results relevant to paternity evaluation. … After the preliminary results are obtained, they are examined by only a handful of qualified and designated directors, including Wurzinger.

State v. Maas & Waldstein Co.

83 N.J. Super. 211 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 1964

In such circumstances, the defense of sovereign immunity would not be available to plaintiff. Indeed, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is currently in disfavor. See McCabe v. N. J. Turnpike Authority, 35 N. … J., in accordance with the plans shown on the drawings attached * * These drawings clearly show that the federal consent extended beyond the very limited area of the railroad bridge to which defendant refers.

Tonyelle R. Jamison, Etc. v. Jersey City Medical Center

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2024

"This test recognizes that even a person who acted negligently is entitled to a qualified immunity, if [the person] acted in an objectively reasonable manner." Frields, 305 N.J. … Even if defendants were not entitled to immunity, the court correctly determined plaintiff failed to establish JCMC breached any applicable standard of care and failed to prove the alleged "systemic and structural flaws

Tabor v. O'GRADY

59 N.J. Super. 330 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1960

The duty to alight is qualified by the circumstances. … There were circumstances which, taken together, could be found to have qualified the duty to alight. It was 3:30 A.M.

State v. Burten

219 N.J. Super. 339 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1986

Clearly, in this case both failures to make contributions to the pension and/or welfare funds are separate maintainable causes. … S.A. 2A:170-90.2 clearly “relates to” an employee benefit plan.

Aichele v. Borough of Oakley

1 N.J. Super. 621 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1948

Though the pecuniary interest of the plaintiff is small, the standing of one otherwise qualified to question the resolution is not to be determined by the mere matter of dollars and cents involved. Cf. Schwartz v. … The term "assessments" as read in the context therein clearly means municipal charges and not the value of land subject to taxation.

Frame v. Kothari

218 N.J. Super. 537 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1987

This issue is therefore appropriately before us for determination as to whether it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law. R. 2:10-1. … The Portee Court clarified and expanded the doctrine it established in Falzone v. Busch, 45 N.J. 559 (1965).

Highton v. Musto

186 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1982

Thus, the Alongi case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case and, in fact, is clear support for the applicability of the general rule. … Therefore, perhaps his disqualification would lie outside the time period established by N.J.S.A. 40A:16-17.

Atlantic City Racing Ass'n v. Attorney General

198 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 1983

specific regard to the construction of constitutional provisions, the courts have held that the contemporaneous legislative understanding of constitutional terms susceptible of different meanings is entitled to great weight in establishing … N.J.S.A. 5:5-62 clearly limited wagering to the track at which the race meet was held. However, this section was recently amended by L. 1983, c. 340 which will be discussed later.