Case law

State v. Murphy

137 N.J. Super. 404 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 5, 1975

Consideration of the various factors separately shows no one factor in itself sufficient to establish probable cause. … The court therefore finds the order sufficiently qualified in scope to survive the constitutional challenge of overbreadth.

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

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. Smith

262 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1993

From our review of this record, we conclude that neither of defendant's two premises has been established. First, if HIV cannot possibly be spread by a bite, the evidence at trial did not establish that proposition. … Defendant also suggests how a "better drafter" could have more clearly expressed the meaning he infers.

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.

In re Code Enforcement Officer

349 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 2002

VII, § 1, 112, the Legislature created the Department of Personnel (Department) as a principal department within the executive branch of government and further established the Merit System Board and Commissioner of Personnel … Based on the outcome of the examination, along with other factors, the Commissioner provides for the establishment, certification, and cancellation of eligible lists of candidates. N.J.S.A. llA:4-4.

Trump v. O'BRIEN

403 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2008

Andreoli, 92 Misc. 2d 410 , 400 N.Y.S. 2d 442 (1977), a judge of the New York Supreme Court discussed at length the proofs required for a journalist to establish the confidentiality of his sources. … He stated: Clearly, the "cloak of confidentiality" essential to invocation of the privilege is established ...

Hayes v. Board of Trustees

421 N.J. Super. 43 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2011

PTSD is a qualifying psychiatric diagnosis of a permanently disabling mental injury that can constitute the basis for ADR benefits. See Brunell v. … Thus, the record establishes that the manifestation was delayed, bringing petitioner's claim within the Crimaldi exception.

HUNGERFORD & TERRY, INC. v. Geschwindt

24 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1953

Hungerford were the actual owners of the entire authorized capital stock, of the par value of $100 per share, although some qualifying shares were not registered in their names, the former owning 185 shares and the latter … The assets of the corporation which were acquired prior to June 28, 1928 are now insufficient to establish a value of $375 per share.

Miller v. Township of Wayne

154 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 18, 1977

The central issue presented in this case for determination is narrow and clearly defined. … The intention of the Legislature is clearly set out in the body of the statute itself.

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").

Borough of Glassboro v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 108

395 N.J. Super. 644 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 27, 2007

A municipality’s decision in the promotional process will not be disturbed by an arbitrator unless it is clearly arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Gaskill v. … Clearly, the arbitrator regarded that action as arbitrary, even if he did not use the specific word.

Oswin v. Shaw

250 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 1991

There is no claim that her activities were limited to an extent qualifying her under this "non-permanent" injury category. … We are struck with the irony that plaintiff's injury clearly is not serious enough to qualify under Type 9 designed to include transitorily serious but "nonpermanent" injuries which disable a person for a substantial period

Lasky v. BOROUGH OF HIGHTSTOWN

426 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 2012

In contending otherwise, defendant relies on three cases that, it argues, implicitly establish that a request for assistance is required to establish a public accommodation disability discrimination claim. … In doing so, the court failed to appreciate the distinction, clearly drawn in federal cases under the ADA, between particularized claims of a failure to reasonably accommodate and generalized claims of an overall lack of

Rocappi, Inc. v. Taxation Div. Director

182 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1981

The holding of the majority in the Hoeganaes case clearly controls the present case. … Rocappi was not qualified to do business in Massachusetts and did not indicate on its New Jersey tax returns that it had a place of business in Massachusetts.

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.

Ullmann v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

87 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1965

"Unlike other modes of discovery, not similarly qualified, which cast the burden of resisting relief upon the respondent, the applicant must establish affirmatively the propriety of an inspection." 2 Schnitzer and Wildstein … Giving appropriate weight to each, the production of tax returns should not be ordered unless it clearly appears they are relevant to the subject matter of the action or to the issues raised thereunder, and further, that

State ex rel. D. G.

174 N.J. Super. 243 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1980

G. had already established a relationship with MHS’s therapists and that any decision in this regard should be made only after considering the consequences of switching therapy in midstream and in light of Catholic Services … Indeed, the only item petitioner seeks which would qualify as a court record is a report *249 prepared by DYFS at the court’s request, which was filed with the court, thereby becoming a court record.

Beatty v. Farmer

366 N.J. Super. 69 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2004

A prima facie cause of action under the LAD is established when [t]he plaintiff [ ] demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) applied *75 and was qualified for a … To establish pretext, he needed to establish “that (1) a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer than the employer’s proffered legitimate reason, or (2) the defendant’s proffered explanation is ‘unworthy

State v. R.W.

200 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1985

The materials submitted with the motion established the movie had been shown at the beginning of the trial on the evening of Monday, January 9 to an audience of 60 million people and was second only to “The Day After” in … Here the court determined that the infant was qualified as a witness, a ruling which we do not review.