Case law

Allan-Deane Corp. v. Tp. of Bedminster

153 N.J. Super. 114 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1977

Super. 114 (1977) 379 A.2d 265 ALLAN-DEANE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, QUALIFIED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. … stated purpose of the meeting was "to discuss the Allan-Dean Proposal and its impact on the Somerset Hills Area," the written meeting notice further identifying the three municipalities as the communities "where the long-established

Evangelou v. Terzano

298 N.J. Super. 467 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 1997

It shall be and hereby is established that Defendant, Terzano[,] was the agent of Defendant, NJAFIUA; C. The Cross-Motion of Defendant, Terzano, shall be and hereby is dismissed. … In support of its motion, the NJAFIUA argued that insurers, agents, and brokers were immune from liability for failure to advise customers or insureds of additional or increased limits of UM/UIM coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A

JOHN P. BROWN v. PATRICIA BROWN (L-2367-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 2022

A-0384-21 5  Patricia Brown moved for summary judgment, arguing the litigation privilege immunized her from all these claims. … in the complaint; when it is recorded as part of, or in the course of, a judicial proceeding, and has some relation to and was intended "to achieve the objects of the litigation," Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 216 – elements clearly

Des Champs Laboratories, Inc. v. Martin

427 N.J. Super. 84 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 6, 2012

In its letter memorializing that denial, the Department stressed “the overlying presumption that an industrial establishment, without regard to fault, should not qualify for a [DQE] when contamination is known to exist at … “[U]nless such regulations are ‘clearly [ultra vires] on their face,’ the party contesting them has the burden of proving their invalidity.” N.J. Guild of Hearing Aid Dispensers v.

Passaic County PBA Local 197 v. Office of Passaic County Prosecutor

385 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2006

Continuing, the judge concluded: It is clearly reasonable that, in most instances, the report documenting the reasonable suspicion would be prepared by the agency employing that officer and subsequently reviewed by the chief … While there’s no doubt that a municipal police department and/or a county sheriffs department qualify as a law enforcement agency, it follows that a county prosecutor’s office must be similarly deemed a law enforcement agency

Szabo v. NJ State Firemen's Ass'n

230 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 1988

Rules that purport to qualify the right to membership, he claims, are invalid. … That system is clearly contrary to N.J.S.A. 43:17-9 and cannot stand.

State v. Green

417 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2010

Those documents are clearly relevant to whether Soke was properly trained and operated the Stalker Lidar device in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions on the day in question. Cf. … Here, the judge concluded that defendant was not qualified to testify as an expert and barred admission of his testimony and opinings.

JOSE CRUZ VS. TRUSTEES OF CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH (L-1286-16, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 5, 2019

We concluded that "[t]he proof [was], therefore, insufficient to establish a level of wrongful conduct that would deprive [the defendants] of the [Act's] immunity." Ibid. … Further, plaintiff points to no case where the condition of the property, in and of itself, was sufficient to establish gross negligence.

Distributec Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

274 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1994

for establishment of a new port outside of the defined port areas. … IV All other issues raised by Distributee in this appeal are so clearly without merit that no further discussion is warranted. R. 2:11 — 8(e)(1). Affirmed. Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v.

State v. Ramseur

197 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 1984

THE JUROR SOURCE LIST AND QUALIFIED POOL A. … To establish the existence of a "distinctive" or "cognizable" group, it is necessary to prove the following: (1) The presence of some quality or attribute which `defines and limits' the group; (2) a cohesiveness of `attitudes

State v. Snyder

190 N.J. Super. 626 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1983

The outline of the metal trigger clearly appeared as a purple line on the officer's index finger. Because of the wooden grips there was no mark on his palm. … Forensic Science, Vol. 3, § 38.08 (1981). [9] Detective Shackoor was clearly qualified as an expert witness by virtue of his training and experience in the use of the TMDT.

Hackensack Meadowlands Devel. Comm'n v. Mun. Landfill Auth.

127 N.J. Super. 160 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1974

Since one can reasonably and readily conceive of facts which would support the Legislature's findings and the Commissioner's regulations, the onus is on defendant to establish that the Legislature's and Commissioner's actions … Further, the regulations and statute in question are clearly within the authority of the State's police power to conserve its landfill sites.

Whitfield v. Blackwood

206 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 25, 1985

Plaintiff attempted to establish the standard of care owed and deviation therefrom through the testimony of the defendants and Dr. Lieberman, who was plaintiff's expert. … Here his trial strategy depicted very clearly that such doctrines as joint enterprise and captain of the ship would be the guiding principles in the jury's deliberation.

Reynolds v. Palnut Co.

330 N.J. Super. 162 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 2000

We find that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. He was an older worker, qualifying as a number of a protected class. See Greenberg v. … Camden County Vocational & Technical Schs., 310 N.J.Super. 189, 201 , 708 A. 2d 460 (1998) (holding that a forty-eight year old plaintiff was "clearly a member of a protected class").

Davis v. City of Plainfield

389 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 2006

The court further stated that the language of N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 clearly states that eligibility to hold office is an election law matter and the "statute specifically refers to `eligibility at the time of the election' as … Thus "the firmly established policy of this State is that the `public interest manifestly requires that election contests be promptly tried.'" Id. at 391 , 476 A. 2d 1276 . (citations omitted).

BTD-1996, NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.

333 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2000

In nay view, N.J.S.A 22A:4-8 is immune from attack, even though the charges are labeled a tax, rather than a fee or assessment, since the charges are imposed by the Legislature, rather than a municipality. … Anyone challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its unconstitutionality. State v. One 1990 Honda Accord, supra, 154 N.J. at 377 , 712 A.2d 1148 ; Newark Superior Officers Ass’n v.

Malavasi v. Villavecchia

62 N.J. Super. 510 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1960

The federal rule is clearly enunciated in International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 , 161 A.L.R. 1057 (1945); McGee v. International Life Ins. … A single event will suffice if its *519 effects within the state are substantial enough to qualify under Rule Three. (2) The cause of action must be one which arises out of, or results from, the activities of the defendant

Congregation B'Nai Yisroel v. Millburn Tp.

35 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 1955

There the court had to contend with the word lot, qualified by the phrase, "whereon the buildings are erected." … In this case, facts are shown, without contradiction, which clearly establish that `the lot' of the college, for all purposes of use, and *72 consequently of exemption from taxation, remains precisely as before the construction

In Re Romaine

113 N.J. Eq. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1933

Chester Massinger and Grace Baily, the executors named in said instrument, upon their qualifying as such executors. Said instrument was probated in what is denominated common form. … Eq. 439 , and was declared by him to be the established law of this state, and the vice-ordinary cited (at p. 448 ) Rusling v. Rusling, 36 N.J.

Milne v. Goldenberg

428 N.J. Super. 184 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 2012

The trial judge found Schofel’s credentials were impressive and she was well-qualified to fulfill the GAL appointment. … However, any Family Part judge ordering the appointment of a PC must comply with the Supreme Court’s established Guidelines.