Case law

Bistricer v. Bistricer

231 N.J. Super. 143 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 1987

[I]t is not necessary for a writing to contain every possible contractual provision to cover every contingency in order to qualify as a completed binding agreement. … The court is satisfied that the bargain "clearly was struck." Pascarella v. Bruck, supra, 190 N.J. Super. at 126 .

Villanueva v. Zimmer

431 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2013

That being said so, it cannot come in for the proposition to establish that the plaintiff is presumed to be permanently disabled which is what the plaintiff wants to use this finding for____ What plaintiff needs to establish … Clearly, it is not a written statement “of an act done,” or an “event observed” by a public official. Evid. R. 63(15) (emphasis added).

Schwam v. Township of Cedar Grove

228 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1988

The parties agree that 15 of the 16 units were occupied by senior citizens entitled to protective status, but the status of the 16th unit was not clearly determined below. … We recognize that plaintiff had the burden to establish that the county board of taxation's determination in upholding the assessment was erroneous. Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 100 N.J. 408, 413 (1985).

In Re Grant of Charter School Application

320 N.J. Super. 174 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1999

The State Board cites legislative history to support the view that "parents" need not have children in the district to qualify as founders. … By those measures, the Court concluded, the county board (HCBT) "clearly" had standing. Id. at 492 , 628 A. 2d 288 .

Szczesny v. Vasquez

71 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 1962

Super., at page 570 , the notice provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6-65 could not more clearly be expressed. … The doctrine of *359 liberal construction relates to the scope of the legislation and not to the proof or the evidence necessary to establish compliance with its terms and conditions.

Valdes v. New Jersey State Bd. of Medical Examiners

205 N.J. Super. 398 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1985

Even absent this statutory mandate, Valdes asserts that he is entitled to a hearing, as a matter of due process, to establish his qualifications for licensure. … Moreover, we find that all of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).

Wael Nabelsi v. Holmdel Township

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 2025

He maintains her role in plaintiff's arrest did not involve the traditional discretionary decision-making functions of a judge, because as a non-attorney, she was not qualified to "vet whether the warrant application was … The rule is "as thoroughly established as are any other of the primary maxims of the law." Bedrock Found. Inc., v. George H. Brewster & Son, Inc., 31 N.J. 124, 140 (1959).

Statham v. Bush

253 N.J. Super. 607 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1992

Siwek and plaintiff for the jury to conclude that plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident, they failed to produce a witness who could establish which of plaintiff's injuries would have been avoided … objection and qualify Mr.

Capital Health System, Inc. v. New Jersey

445 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2016

In setting up a tiered benefit network, the carrier "may establish criteria and standards for providers of health care services with which it desires to contract, and may establish its own contracting … Based on this commitment, the Department concluded "that the OMNIA Network met the time and distance requirements of N.J.A.C. 11:24A-4.10 and qualified for statewide approval."

Loigman v. Township Committee

409 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 5, 2009

N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1)(a)(i). *1004 There is no dispute that the legal services implicated here qualify as professional services within the meaning of this law. … However, regardless of the method by which counsel is compensated, the duties for which the compensation is to be paid must be clearly defined and separated.

JOHN BOVERY VS. MONMOUTH COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1095-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 16, 2020

charge, following federal precedent established under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … The court's qualified immunity analysis under the Tort Claims Act is also sound.

State v. Kinney Bldg. Drug Stores, Inc.

56 N.J. Super. 37 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1959

. * * * No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of … The crime, and the elements, constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.

In Re Farrell

212 N.J. Super. 294 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1986

Farrell clearly fits the legal definition of competency, both in a general sense and regarding whether she is competent to make a decision to decline life-sustaining treatment. … The Conroy Court qualifies these rights, however, by explaining that "the right to decline life-sustaining medical treatment is not absolute ...

Harvest Restaurants Group, LLC v. Thomas P. Adach

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2026

The limitation of liability provision, therefore, injured the public because it interfered with public welfare and safety by immunizing defendants. … safeguard life, health and property, and promote the public welfare, any person practicing or offering to practice professional engineering . . . in this State shall hereafter be required to submit evidence that [they are] qualified

State of New Jersey v. Daniel A. Borjas

436 N.J. Super. 375 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2014

The statute thus clearly is targeted at defendants who "knowingly" possess or make forms of identification that are of a kind deliberately fashioned by a person  whether it be defendant himself or a third party  in … On the other hand, a defendant's ignorance of the law making his or her possession of something illegal is not, in and of itself, a basis to immunize a criminal defendant.

Mastro v. RETIREMENT SYSTEM

266 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1993

While employed by the Tewksbury Township Planning Board from January 1, 1973 to January 1, 1987, appellant was paid solely on a vouchered basis, but effective January 1, 1987, he received a pension-qualified salary and also … For good cause shown, upon certification by the director and the agency head, the time limits established herein may be subject to extension.

The Nar Group, Inc. v. Save Lebanon Township Coalition

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2025

Plaintiff cites Rule 4:6-1(b) as establishing a distinction between a motion to dismiss and a responsive pleading. … However, those conversations failed to establish that defendant's and Bohn's opposition to plaintiff's development application was a sham precluding immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Artulde Point Du Jour v. Township of Union

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2026

Citing an unpublished opinion, plaintiff also claims the Township's failure to establish a policy preventing the discrimination of mentally ill individuals was a "fatal flaw" to its immunity argument. … Because the Township defendants' conduct was in accordance with the civil commitment statute, their actions cannot qualify as "outrageous." See Leang, 198 N.J. at 587.

Gunter v. Fischer Scientific American

193 N.J. Super. 688 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1984

The Report notes that Evid.R. 63(13) does not require, as did N.J.S.A. 2A:82-35, that the "custodian or other qualified witness" must testify as to the identity and mode of preparation of the business record. … However, routine observations, findings and complaints clearly are admissible. Petitioner relied on Evid.R. 63(8) and Evid.R. 63(9) for admission of Dr. Glass's reports to respondent's carrier.

Warnig v. Atlantic County Special Services

363 N.J. Super. 563 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 2003

A regulatory provision, N.J.A.C. 11:3 — 7.3(b), requires some medical expense benefits to be provided for injuries resulting from accidents not otherwise qualifying for PIP medical expense benefits. … If a change in the common law is to be effectuated, the legislative intent to do so must be clearly and plainly expressed. Ibid. (citation omitted).