Case law

Constantine v. TOWNSHIP OF BASS RIVER

406 N.J. Super. 305 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 2009

The question, of course, is not whether the policy supporting access to public records and the policy supporting a defendant's access to discovery are congruent, because they clearly are not. … privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State, or whose exercise or enjoyment of those substantive rights, privileges or immunities has been interfered with or attempted to be interfered with,

Longo v. Aprile

374 N.J. Super. 469 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2005

Noting that the drip ledge was out in the open, clearly visible, and not concealed in any way, the judge found that it was not a latent condition and, therefore, defendants could not be liable to Ronald as social hosts. … Simply put, there is nothing to establish that the drip ledge or the roof as it existed on the day in question qualified as a danger posing an unreasonable risk of harm to Ronald. Affirmed.

Carroll v. Caufield

80 N.J. Super. 472 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 1963

They contend, further, that the statute cited is subject to no judicial construction, being clear on its face and clearly applicable to their circumstances. … This act merely establishes a seniority right which has heretofore been denied." *480 Each of these quotations appears to be protective in tone.

Kimberly Eydelman v. Vladimir Eydelman

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 18, 2025

However, before considering distribution of marital property, the trial court must first decide which property qualifies as marital property and which property, if any, belongs to either spouse separately. … "To refute such a presumption, the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear 'the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset.'"

State v. Simmons

331 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2000

Clearly, then, the State did no better in juror persuasion the second time. … THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN HIS CHARGE TO THE JURY AS TO THE IMMUNITY GIVEN TO DAVID WILSON. XVII.

Robin B. Wojtkowiak v. New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and New Jersey Division on Civil Rights

439 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 2015

The Legislature established the Division to administer and enforce the LAD. See N.J.S.A. 10:5-6. … Here, complainant showed she had a disability and was qualified to apply for a driver's license.

New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency

447 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2016

that the admission of such evidence constitutes "plain error" — that is, that the admission of such evidence was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." … Contrary to defendant's argument, expert testimony is not required to establish that an individual is intoxicated due to alcohol. See State v.

Tluzek v. Federal Leather Co.

43 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 1957

Reasonableness in this regard, as generally, is to be viewed in the light of the clearly established facts. It is a circumstantial and latitudinous concept. … But I find nothing in the instant case that qualifies it in any way for such exceptional treatment. DePasquale v. Contalvi, 126 N.J.L. 136, 138 ( Sup. Ct. 1941); Magnuson v. Peterson, Inc., 132 N.J.L. 243, 245-6 ( Sup.

Janiec v. State

85 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 1964

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor … Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence."

In Re Estate of Griswold

140 N.J. Super. 35 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1976

Coe qualified to take a bequest given upon the death of the life tenant to her "lawful children." The will was dated September 1, 1897. Testatrix died September 8, 1897. … In any event the first portion clearly dealt with intestate personal and real property.

In re the November 2, 2010 General Election

423 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 2011

N.J.S.A 19:31-6.4 directs the Secretary of State to prepare voter registration forms and states that such forms “shall require ... information ... in substantially the following form: VOTER REGISRATION APPLICATION Print clearly … While the trial judge was satisfied that Hoffman “intended to make South Amboy her permanent home,” mere intent or an inchoate desire to establish a domicile at a given location is insufficient to establish domicile as a

State v. Selvaggio

206 N.J. Super. 328 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 1985

to distribute; (2) the prejudicial effect of proffered evidence by the prosecutor constituted plain error; (3) the State failed to prove that defendant possessed librium with intent to distribute; (4) the State failed to establish … We find that all the issues of law raised by defendant in connection with the conviction are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

State v. Latimore

197 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1984

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6d clearly provides: "The court shall not impose a mandatory sentence pursuant to subsection c of this section, 2C:43-7c or 2C:44-3d unless the ground therefore has been established at a hearing." … N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6d provides what must be established at the hearing required by that section: At the hearing, which may occur at the time of sentencing, the prosecutor shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence that

Margaritell v. Caldwell Twp.

58 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 1959

Morris qualified, and she acted as sole executrix and trustee. … It thus clearly appears that at no time after Burt S.

McGuinness v. Barnes

294 N.J. Super. 519 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 1994

Defendant objects to the plaintiff's using his statements at trial, arguing that it is prejudicial because it is not proper evidence to establish a standard of care; because it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity … Their effect instead is clearly inhibitive; rather than facilitating the illumination of truth, they shut out the light. ........

Baptist Home of South Jersey v. Bor. of Riverton

201 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1984

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-23a provides for the creation of a planning board and establishes its membership. … The educational mission of a regional high school is clearly a "special reason" within the meaning of the statute just cited.

Mauk v. Hoffman

87 N.J. Super. 276 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1965

In view of these decisions, this court is of the opinion that the boards of freeholders of these three counties are clearly malapportioned and that the afore-mentioned statutes of New Jersey are unconstitutional. … The procedure to be followed to select a small board of freeholders is to file a petition with the county clerk, signed by 10% of the qualified voters, as evidenced by the total number of votes cast in the county at the next

Levchuk v. Jovich

372 N.J. Super. 149 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2004

The procedure established to obtain relief under the prior reference requires a review of the successive rules. … Clearly, this vague and non-specific inclusion does not comport with the intent or mandate of the salient court rule.

Cramer v. Sharp

49 N.J. Eq. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1892

The evidence entirely fails to establish it. … This is undoubtedly true where a part of the next of kin, even a majority, ask for the appointment of a stranger against the will of one of their own number, who is willing to take the appointment and qualified to be the

Febus v. Barot

260 N.J. Super. 322 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 19, 1992

It then stated the following: Clearly, expert testimony as to the nature of such risks is necessary. … It did not alter the rule of Calabrese that proof of a risk recognized by the professional community must come from a qualified expert.