Case law

D.M.H. VS. H.G.H. (FM-09-2148-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2020

However, such "[p]roperty 'clearly qualifies for distribution' when it is 'attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse' during marriage." Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 609 (1995). … "The A-4267-17T2 24 burden of establishing immunity rests upon the spouse asserting such immunity."

Matter of Souder

204 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1984

The opinion unequivocally advised the Director that his interpretation was "clearly at odds with Federal regulations". It noted that the: ... … Section 45 C.F.R. 233.20(a)(3)(vi)(b) provides that in establishing eligibility and the amount of payment: ...

Federbush v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Carteret

6 N.J. Super. 70 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 1949

The respondent contends that the intent and purpose of the board in adopting the amended salary guide clearly indicated that a teacher qualifying for an increase in grade would not receive the increase in one step, but at … *Page 75 We are of the opinion that appellant's compensation was controlled by the salary guide established by the local board's resolution adopted in September, 1944, as amended in December, 1946, and made effective as of

C.L. v. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 17, 2022

C.L. purchased an annuity contract with the Croatian Fraternal Union of America (CFUA) as part of a spend-down plan to qualify for Medicaid benefits. … To qualify for Medicaid benefits, an individual may not have more than $2,000 in countable assets.

Spirito v. New Jersey Real Estate Comm'n

180 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1981

It is well established that each part of a statute should be construed in a manner consistent with the principal legislative intent. State v. Bander, 56 N.J. 196, 201 (1970). … Rather, a reading of the statutory language, along with its historical development, leads us to conclude that the legislature intended to immunize attorneys from the provisions of the Real Estate License Act only with respect

NY Harbor Associates v. City of Jersey City

17 N.J. Tax 602 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1998

Plaintiffs real estate appraiser was qualified to testify as an expert. He testified as to the contents of an appraisal report which he had helped prepare for his firm. … They were not plainly arbitrary and Judge Kuskin’s decision was clearly justified by plaintiffs lack of cogent evidence. Emmis *609 Broadcasting Corp. v.

State of New Jersey v. Shannon A. McGuigan

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2024

"Under that standard, an unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" State v. Clark, 251 N.J. 266, 287 (2022) (quoting R. 2:10-2). … Given the application of the totality-of-the-circumstances test, which the Court reaffirmed in Sims, 250 N.J. at 217, we see no reason to establish a bright-line rule.

State v. Randazzo

92 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 18, 1966

R. 3:5-5, so that the presumption arose that it was duly constituted and qualified. It is conceded that the indictment was returned on September 9, 1964, which was within the legal period of its existence. … The portion of the opinion on which defendant relies was clearly obiter dictum, and there was not present in that case proof of the quality here shown that the witnesses had been sworn.

Ruvoldt v. Tumulty

107 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1969

In view of the broad statutory immunity granted to such witnesses by N.J.S.A. 19:34-60, it is argued that the only purpose of such an inquisition is harassment. … The subject matter of the investigation is clearly an election law violation within the ambit of the superintendent's investigative responsibilities.

BRANDON CAMACHO VS. RIAZ MOTANI (L-5544-11, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 2017

process, violation of the CRA, and supervisor liability; and that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity "shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Glen J. Heuman v. Wayne Heuman

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2023

At bottom, plaintiffs fail to establish defendants' conduct qualified as an intentional wrong under the statute or the case law. … We are unconvinced the ostensible lack of coverage under defendants' CGL policy warrants an exception the WCA as established by the Legislature.

Sheerr v. Evesham Tp.

184 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1982

It might be argued that the regulations were designed to prevent the loss of a water supply, the loss of the visual enhancement of the property and the loss of wild life, thus qualifying as legislation designed to prevent … They fall clearly within the rule of Morris Cty. Land , which held that restricting the use of land to open space was a taking. VIII.

Gilbert v. Unsatisfied Claim, Etc., Bd.

85 N.J. Super. 143 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1964

(Emphasis added) The Fund argues that under the literal construction of the statute it is mandatory that a judgment be entered against *147 Newell to qualify plaintiffs for payment by the Fund; that inability to locate Newell … The facts in that case are clearly distinguishable.

Dittmar v. Continental Casualty Co.

50 N.J. Super. 593 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1958

He died four months later, but meanwhile he attempted some door-to-door selling and gave a friend some assistance in establishing a grocery department in his store. … The case is clearly distinguishable. We are referred to Shaffer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 133 N. J. L. 53 (Sup.

Trailways, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City

179 N.J. Super. 258 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1980

A declared purpose to regulate arguably tends to establish the exaction as a regulatory license fee. … N.J.S.A. 48:4-14.1 clearly prohibits any such municipal license fees.

Forbringer v. Romano

10 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1950

True, the intention of the testator will not prevail if it is inimical to an established rule of law. … In general, a restraint solely on use and enjoyment will not be nullified unless it clearly exceeds reasonable limitations in the circumstances of the given case.

Carmen A. Sexton v. State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 2026

Plaintiff next contends the court erred in dismissing her CRA claims against the DOC defendants in its February 15, 2024 order based on absolute prosecutorial immunity or qualified immunity. … An indictment, by definition, establishes probable cause. Trabal v. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp., 269 F.3d 243, 251 (3d. Cir. 2001).

Carroll v. DeMartini

19 N.J. Super. 136 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1952

In that instance the effect thereof would not create a legally qualified status of the parties to enter into a binding marital contract on the date of the New York marriage. … Besides that, the long failure of plaintiff to act clearly evidences a guilt of laches and good cause to conclude her right of enforcement now would be inequitable.

In Re Fisler

131 N.J. Eq. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1942

The words "issue" and "lawful issue" in this paragraph were not qualified by the testatrix. (Italics mine; also mine in the following three paragraphs.) … In this paragraph the words in question are not qualified. In two instances testatrix did add words which may be construed as words of qualification.

Mutschler v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

337 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 2001

Prior to construction, the Borough must adopt a Land Use Regulation Program approved municipal resolution clearly listing all these properties. … Therefore, condition seven of the permit issued to West Cape May is clearly valid.