Case law

EDWARD GROSS VS. BOROUGH OF FORT LEE (L-5742-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 2018

a waiver of sovereign immunity." … Nor did any DPW workers notify their superior in accordance with established protocol when such defects are observed.

Favell v. Hernandez

261 N.J. Super. 348 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 1992

That is, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case as to any of the statutorily categorized injuries under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. In Oswin v. … range-of-motion tests are based only on patient's pain responses, they ordinarily will not suffice unless the restricted mobility is verified by physical examination and observation. ( 129 N.J. at 319 , 609 A. 2d 415 ). *357 Clearly

Marx v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.

380 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2005

In both Burger King cases discussed above, the Courts of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's factual determination that the employer had not established the percentage requirement for lower paid assistant managers "as not clearly … its lower-paid, long test, assistant managers was not clearly erroneous).

Stuchin v. Kasirer

237 N.J. Super. 604 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1990

Defendants unequivocally chose to forego this known claim, clearly establishing a waiver. East Orange v. Board of Water Commissioners, 41 N.J. 6, 17 (1963). … now N.J.S.A. 31:1-1(e)(1)) provides an exemption for loans "in the amount of $50,000.00 or more," subject to exceptions not here pertinent. [3] Therefore assuming arguendo that the increase in interest rate after default qualifies

In re United Parcel Service, Inc.

255 N.J. Super. 195 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1992

The exemption the Commission granted to the travel industry is clearly distinguishable from UPS’s application. … Moreover, all of the *213 issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Fox v. Stuyvesant Town, Inc.

3 N.J. Super. 408 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1949

This is clearly a non sequitur. The first approval being a lawful one, the second was unnecessary and meaningless. … The literal sense of the terms may be qualified by the context. The significance of a particular part of the writing is determined by a consideration of all its parts.

State v. Quezada

402 N.J. Super. 277 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 13, 2008

See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-13 (tort immunity for volunteer firefighters); Schwartz v. … However, we cannot so hold in this case because there is no mandatory minimum established by the Legislature, and in any event, [10] the anti-merger legislation embodied in N.J.S.A. 2C:30-7 added language to that embodied

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT J.G. IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT C.C. (ML-17-13-0023 AND ML-18-04-0057, MONMOUTH AND CAMDEN COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 13, 2020

Witt was qualified as an expert in the evaluation, treatment, and risk assessment of sex offenders. He explained that he met with and evaluated J.G. … Child pornography clearly existed in 1995. As developed, the scale was to be applied to various sex offenders.

State of New Jersey v. R.A.M.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 2025

Therefore, D.P. qualified as a victim of domestic violence under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13). … The Legislature clearly intended for courts to apply aggravating factor fifteen to defendants that have an established history of committing domestic violence and are convicted of committing a new offense against a victim

ABC BAIL BONDS, INC. VS. GLENN A. GRANT (C-000075-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2019

But that constitutional right is clearly qualified by, among other limitations, compliance with the conditions of bail not only by the principal but also by the surety. … go beyond the term when it finds "exceptional circumstances" have been established.

Pastore v. County of Essex

237 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 15, 1989

Clearly, this provision for restoration discloses the drafters contemplated that a conviction would cause the forfeiture of an "employment" and not merely of an "office or position." … We next turn to plaintiff's argument that Judge Brochin erroneously construed the qualifying phrase "honor, trust or profit" as referring to all governmental employment.

Hunterdon Cent. High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. HUNTERDON CENT. HIGH SCH. TEACHERS'ASS'N

174 N.J. Super. 468 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1980

On the petition of the board for a scope of negotiations determination, the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) held that the granting of such leaves, which otherwise would qualify as a term and condition of employment … Clearly, there would be no secular purpose in such provision; indeed, the sole purpose would be to permit certain teachers to be absent with pay for no reason other than religious observance, even though the number of allowable

Malone v. Midlantic Bank, N.A.

334 N.J. Super. 238 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 9, 1999

Such a lease, if bona fide, would clearly represent an interest in land, Taylor v. Borgfeld, supra. … Movants’ application to establish their right to continue in possession and/or to redeem is therefore denied. Plaintiffs request for possession will be granted and a Judgment will be *251 entered to that effect.

Camarco v. City of Orange

111 N.J. Super. 400 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1970

Plaintiff clearly has standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance. … He is more qualified to question the ordinance than most other citizens of Orange in that he was arrested under the former ordinance which dealt with the same action of loitering.

Lake Shore Estates v. DENVILLE TP.

255 N.J. Super. 580 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 1991

However, the court gave leave to Lake Shore to present yet another development proposal to the Board, still immune from compliance with Denville's 1986 steep slope and two-acre zoning ordinances. … To promote the establishment of appropriate population densities ... that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment; * * * * * * * * g.

First Real Estate Inv. Trust v. Hasbrouck Heights

190 N.J. Super. 85 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 1983

It clearly failed to sustain that burden. … There is nothing in the record to indicate that plaintiff ever applied for "hardship" relief. [2] See Internal Revenue Code provisions 26 U.S.C.A. § 856 et seq. and Federal Tax Regulations § 1.856-1 et seq., applicable to qualified

Sautto v. Edenboro Apartments, Inc.

84 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1964

The prevailing rule requires that reliance thereon be clearly established. See Roselle v. Moonachie, 49 N.J. Super. 35 ( App. Div. 1958), reaffirming 48 N.J. Super. 17 ( App. Div. 1957). … Super., at p. 94 ) The trend is toward the application of equitable principles of estoppel where the interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate. Note, Gruber v.

BD. OF TRUSTEES OF TCHRS'. PENSION v. La Tronica

81 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1963

Deficits do arise in the Fund's reserves where abnormal salary adjustments are made just prior to or at the time a member qualifies for benefit, since the actuarial salary projections for contributions do not make allowance … Clearly the actions of the local boards and the subsequent demands of the respondents have a something-for-nothing color to them which *471 should be deplored.

Associated Metals, Etc., Corp. v. Dixon Chemical

82 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1964

The proofs in this case clearly demonstrate that the movement of the sulphur and the maintenance of the pile brought defendant well within the quoted Restatement rule so as to establish liability for plaintiff's damage. … Defendant further suggests that its conduct is immunized by the concept of "avoidable consequences."

State v. Jasuilewicz

205 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1985

If there is any substantial possibility that the accused could, but for his amnesia, establish an alibi or other defense, it should be presumed that he would have been able to do so. (6) Any other facts and circumstances … The balance of the evidence in the case, including the eyewitness testimony of defendant's brother clearly showed the brutal nature of the act.