Case law

Mayhew v. Wagenhoffer

43 N.J. Super. 122 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1956

Mayhew qualified as executrices. The question here involved is whether Frances C. Mayhew and Mary C. Wagenhoffer now have a vested interest in the real estate mentioned in the will. … Van Houten the rules established by that decision *126 have been frequently applied by our courts in construing limitations over by way of executory devise.”

Hospital Center at Orange v. Guhl

331 N.J. Super. 322 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2000

The Division's delay in issuing decisions regarding appellant's Medicaid rate appeals was as clearly unjustifiable as the administrative delay that the Court found to violate "fundamental procedural fairness" in Arndt. … Section 1983 ( 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 ) provides in relevant part: *1086 Every person who, under color of any statute, ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any ... person ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

In Re JW

410 N.J. Super. 125 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2009

These mandatory time limits, we believe, were established to balance a Registrant's need for adequate preparation time with the clearly expressed legislative concern in adopting Megan's Law that members of the public receive … There are facts that, in our view, clearly warrant higher static criteria scoring.

Kelly v. Geriatric and Med. Serv.

287 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1996

Weiner, 145 Ariz. 414 , 701 P. 2d 1222 (Ct.App. 1985) (registered nurse, regularly assigned to a hospital by an agency, held to be lent employee; hospital was her special employer and entitled to immunity from negligence … Though an LPN, plaintiff's assignments and the evaluation of her *577 performance were clearly under the day to day control of CRCC.

DeBartolomeis v. Bd. of Review

341 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2001

R. 2(3), it merely conforms the rule to established practice. N.J. Evid. … That is clearly proper.

TERRACE CONDO. ASSO. v. Midlantic Nat. Bank

268 N.J. Super. 488 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 1993

The purchaser relies upon his "knowledge and skill, and he impliedly represents that he is qualified to erect a habitable dwelling. He is also in a better position to prevent the existence of major defects." … Midlantic seeks to immunize itself by claiming that it is not a builder with respect to The Terrace and that non-builders cannot be liable for breaches of the implied warranty of reasonable workmanship.

State v. RW

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.

State of New Jersey v. Ellis

280 N.J. Super. 533 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1995

Plain error is error that is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 , 273 A. 2d 1 (1971); R. 2:10-2. A. … Accordingly, this error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result," and reversal and remand is warranted. [5] *546 B.

Cold Indian Springs Corp. v. Tp. of Ocean

154 N.J. Super. 75 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1977

Economic interests are clearly not fundamental rights. Id. at 40-41 , 93 S.Ct. at 1300-1301. On the contrary, federal review of state fiscal policies on equal protection grounds is extremely limited. … Otherwise, one would be able to obtain immunity from the state regulation by making private contractual arrangements. This principle is summarized in Mr.

K.S. VS. J.S. (FM-18-0685-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 2020

Property qualifies for equitable distribution when it is attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse during the marriage. Pascale, 140 N.J. at 609. … The burden of establishing the immunity of property from equitable distribution lies with the party seeking exclusion. Id. at 609.

Roxbury Bd. of Ed. v. Milford Bd. of Ed.

283 N.J. Super. 505 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1995

The ALJ further ordered the parents to seek modification of the divorce decree so that a singular residence for J.K. could be *515 established. … Clearly, a dispute within the context of the IDEA was thereby created.

New Brunswick Cellular Telephone Co. v. Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment

300 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 7, 1997

Judge Skillman squarely concluded that such concerns were preempted by the Radiation *475 Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 26:2D-1 through 88, and that any challenge to the issue of preemption “would be clearly lacking in merit.” … CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Board’s rejection of Com-cast’s application for a d(3) variance was clearly arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

State v. Motley

369 N.J. Super. 314 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 2004

While the prosecutor's discretion is not without limits, Negran, supra, 178 N.J. at 82 , 835 A. 2d 301 ; Brooks, supra, 175 *879 N.J. at 225, 814 A. 2d 1051 , the defendant must establish that the prosecutor's denial of his … In this instance, it is not for the judiciary to second guess or qualify the policy position taken by the Office of the Attorney General with respect to the possession of assault weapons and the danger associated with the

State v. May

362 N.J. Super. 572 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 2003

fourth-degree crime established in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(b) for his alleged possession of child pornography. … The court excluded that testimony because Wolf had not "been qualified as an expert in determining... age...."

John Schmirsky v. Township of Winslow

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 2026

'against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Friedman v. … "To sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four A-0917-24 8 elements

Bailey v. Driscoll

34 N.J. Super. 228 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1955

The point was not argued below, so we assume that any defense of immunity from suit was abandoned prior to trial. … or to be established."

Mountain Springs Assn. v. Wilson

81 N.J. Super. 564 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 1963

The facts in the present case are clearly distinguished from Neponsit. Here the covenant did not provide that the grantee would contribute money for the maintenance of the roads, lake or other facilities. … It is also firmly established that the policy of the law is against the imposition of restrictions upon the use and enjoyment of land, and that such restrictions are to be strictly construed.

Palamar Const., Inc. v. Tp. of Pennsauken

196 N.J. Super. 241 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 1983

In addition to stating the committee's finding that defendant was a qualified and responsible bidder, the resolution also provided * * * * * * * * 3. … In this instance, however, those salutary principles are clearly inapplicable.

State in the Interest of, A.A.M.

228 N.J. Super. 9 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1988

Clearly, probable cause exists that A.A.M. possessed the controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute *13 same, violative of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5. … A.A.M. argues that the qualifying phrase “which involve the distribution for pecuniary gain” means that the State must present evidence of an actual transaction with the exchange of money.

State of New Jersey v. Kwamere T. Benjamin

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2024

Dralle also challenges the court's instruction on Barner's immunity. … in order to obtain . . . the immunity for himself, he's telling a lie to you or whether, having been granted immunity, he is telling the truth."