Case law

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

Concerned Citizens v. Mayor

370 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 2004

The judge observed that "there is no requirement that an individual preparing a report regarding a redevelopment be qualified as an expert." … In my view, however, those facts failed to establish an important public interest that required adjudication.

Schaffer v. Oldak

12 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1951

Nathan Schaffer and Estelle Schaffer have duly qualified and are acting as trustees of the trust mentioned in Paragraph Seventh (c) 3 aforesaid. … Super. 517 ( Law Div. 1950), is clearly distinguishable. There the defendant pleaded the statute of limitations.

State of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Boone

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 2024

We defer to the trial court's factual findings on the motion unless they were "clearly mistaken" or "so wide of the mark" that the interests of justice require appellate intervention, State v. … See Regis, 208 N.J. at 449 n.3 (emphasizing "the Legislature qualified its mandate to remain in a single lane with the crucial phrase 'as nearly as practicable'").

State v. Brown

227 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1988

The elements of the offense are clearly stated and persons of common intelligence cannot reasonably differ as to its meaning or application. … The statute establishes clear guidelines which informs the public what is prohibited and instructs the police what is permitted, thereby deterring arbitrary and discriminatory law enforcement. The statute is not vague.

In Re Sullivan

184 N.J. Super. 463 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1981

These must not be authorized, however, unless they necessary, a question clearly affected by terms and conditions of employment. … Many of them were highly qualified and could be replaced only after a long period of training.

Sitkowski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Lavallette

238 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1990

The 20 day limit was clearly designed to insulate the recipient of a building permit or other favorable disposition from the threat of unrestrained future challenge. … We do not suggest, however, that a building permit cloaks the holder with complete immunity from future challenges.

Berry v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

195 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 1984

Hoy further testified that he was aware that decedent would have had to remain at work until August 1, 1969 in order for his widow to qualify for survivors' benefits. … "Having undertaken to advise, defendant was bound to advise clearly." Id. at 546.

Mahler v. Borough of Fair Lawn

94 N.J. Super. 173 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1967

The primary use of the premises by the occupant must be residential and the `home occupation' engaged in must be clearly incidental thereto. … On the variance issue, the Law Division judge merely stated: "* * * [T]he plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish the criteria under the statute.

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.

Howard Savings Institution v. Trustees of Amherst College

61 N.J. Super. 119 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 14, 1960

establishes that neither defendant, now comprising Kinfolk, was a desirable beneficiary party. … Amherst was shown to be non-sectarian, and the resolution of Amherst clearly belies any other disposition.

Maslonka v. Hermann

173 N.J. Super. 566 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1980

The dissent contends that "the case was clearly not ripe for summary judgment." (P. 584). Plaintiff did not make this contention in the Law Division. … [at 75] *590 The case was clearly not ripe for summary judgment. I would reverse the order under review and remand the matter to the Law Division for trial.

N.C. Housing Associates v. Elayne Hightower-Cooper

281 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1995

R. 4:49-l(c). *323 Clearly, the court herein had the duty and authority to vacate this judgment of possession sua sponte. … The burden of proof is upon the landlord to establish it.

Coletti v. UN. CTY. BD. OF C. FREEHOLDERS

217 N.J. Super. 31 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 1987

N.J.S.A. 40:41A-47 (hereafter, § 47) establishes the qualifications of the county manager and provides for the county manager's appointment and removal. … It reads: The county manager shall be qualified by administrative and executive experience and ability to serve as the chief executive of the county.

State v. J.G.

261 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1993

Although these statements were less detailed, the court determined that their reliability was established by the totality of the circumstances. … Defendant’s remaining arguments in which he challenges the fairness of the trial and the jury’s verdict are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Plan for Abolition of Council

424 N.J. Super. 410 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2012

All members shall serve until their respective successors are appointed and shall have qualified. … N.J.S.A. 52:27D-305b also provided that members would serve six-year terms, with staggered starting dates, and would carry over until successors were appointed and qualified.

Mourning v. Correctional Medical Services

300 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1997

They are clearly *233 remedial and do not constitute ex post facto punishment.” … Health care service requests are made through established institutional procedures.

Lilly v. Allstate Ins. Co.

218 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1987

Producers have the authority to issue binders to qualified applicants. N.J.S.A. 17:30E-9a. Upon receipt of a premium, a servicing carrier must issue an insurance policy to a qualified applicant. N.J.S.A. 17:30E-9b. … Producers who are not exclusive representatives of a company which is a servicing carrier or who have not otherwise established a contractual relationship with a servicing carrier pursuant to this section, shall be assigned

MT. BETHEL HUMUS v. State

273 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1994

Bethel) did not qualify for an exemption under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 13:9B-4d of the FWPA. Mt. Bethel appeals from that determination and we affirm. Mt. … Bethel had failed to establish that it had received preliminary site plan approval for its operation prior to July 1, 1988, the effective date of the FWPA. Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's determination.

Miller v. American Family Pub.

284 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 1995

Proof that a defendant's action contravenes any one of those standards will establish a violation of the Act — regardless of any proof of intent. … In doing so, it discussed at some length the meaning of the term "ascertainable loss" setting out a rule which would clearly qualify plaintiffs' claims here as involving "ascertainable loss": Whenever a consumer has received