Case law

PALISADES SAFETY & INS. ASS'N v. Bastien

344 N.J. Super. 319 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 10, 2001

Here it is clear from the affidavit submitted by Palisades' underwriting manager that representations about resident household members and drivers are relied upon to establish premiums. In Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. … Clearly, it is "prospectively reasonably relevant" to an auto carrier whether it is insuring one resident driver or two, particularly with respect to no-fault benefits such as PIP where the exposure is potentially $250,000

First Atlantic Federal Credit Union v. Perez

391 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2007

Here, the mere reference to "expenses" in N.J.S.A. 12A:4-103(e) hardly qualifies as an exception to our strict "American" rule. … Here, Lira Capital's pleading clearly reflects an objectively reasonable belief that the actions of a third party, defendant Perez, were a direct cause of BOA's putative loss, and thus it was entirely proper for Lira Capital

Sun Dial Corp. v. Rideout

29 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1954

It "may be a device or process which is clearly anticipated in the prior art or one which is merely a mechanical improvement that a good mechanic can make. … An express agreement on the part of an employee to observe secrecy is not necessary to the establishment of a confidential relationship.

In Re Probate of Will of Lee

389 N.J. Super. 22 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 2006

He noted that "Minerva's will clearly lays out that there are to be specific legatees which are to take place before distribution to the charitable institutions," and therefore found "no reason that the Charities are in fact … The doctrine of probable intent is long established in New Jersey's jurisprudence.

CIC Corp. v. East Brunswick Tp.

266 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1993

But clearly a balancing of equal protection interests must come down on the side of upholding this Ordinance. .... … East Brunswick also claims that the number of taverns, as distinguished from eating establishments, in the Township is negligible.

College of Medicine, NJ v. Morrison

141 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1976

Morrison qualified as a veteran within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 38:16-1 by reason of her tour of duty with the United States Public Health Service during the Korean War. Cf. Miele v. McGuire, 53 N.J. … The College was established under the Medical and Dental Education Act of 1970, which became effective on July 1, 1970. N.J.S.A. 18A:64G-1 and N.J.S.A. 18A:64G-2.

Prunetti v. Mercer County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

350 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2001

The doctrine of preemption is well established in New Jersey law. … Bay, 77 N.J. 439, 450 , 390 A. 2d 1177 (1978).) ] In the case at bar, N.J.S.A. 22A:4-17.2 clearly preempts Section 2.03.050.

Thomas Nuscis v. John Kee

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2024

A-3290-21 6  The principles we articulated in DiVencenzo resonate clearly with the facts before us and are dispositive. … As to co-defendant Kee, our careful review of this record reveals no facts which would defeat his affirmative defense of qualified immunity. See Will v. Mich.

Rezem Family Associates, LP v. Borough of Millstone

423 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2011

“The second task is to identify a ‘right, privilege or immunity’ secured to the claimant by the Constitution or other federal laws of the United States.” Ibid. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ). … With respect to Rezem’s alternative argument that it did in fact rely on the Van Dyke defendants’ professional work in advising municipal officials, the complaint clearly alleges that Rezem did not accept the accuracy of

DCPP VS. E.E., T.B., SR., AND J.E., IN THE MATTER OF T.B., JR., L.B., P.B., AND P.O.P.L. (FN-03-0017-17, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2019

It did not seek to qualify Maringanti as an expert, but instead offered her lay testimony as the children's treating dentist. … Thus, the trial court was permitted to rely upon the testimony of Maringanti, the children's treating dentist, without qualifying her as an expert.

DOUG PERKINS VS. BOROUGH OF MANASQUAN (L-2916-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2021

there is no 'beach' for purposes of the immunities intended by N.J.S.A. 59:4-8." … And clearly [defendant] had in fact taken steps to warn against that condition.

Beasley v. Passaic County

377 N.J. Super. 585 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 2005

First, the County claims plaintiff failed to establish that plaintiff performed a "whistle-blowing" activity, and second that plaintiff failed to establish that the actions taken against him by the County qualified as retaliation … The County also argues that the alleged actions taken against plaintiff did not qualify as retaliation under CEPA.

In Re Military Service Credit

378 N.J. Super. 277 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2005

We may intervene only in those "rare circumstances in which an agency['s] action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or other state policy." Ibid. … The latter clearly applies only to teaching staff members employed by local school districts, regional boards of education and county vocational schools.

Selimo v. Hartshorn

99 N.J. Super. 146 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 1968

Ultimate success or failure in that litigation is of no moment on this application, since the Legislature clearly intended that plaintiff undertake the imperative duty of exhausting his remedy by prosecuting such action in … Nevertheless, it is manifest from the purpose of the legislation that a claimant must exert "all reasonable efforts" in the process of exhausting his available remedies, in order to qualify for payment.

Sillery v. Fagan

120 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 1972

Risko, 56 N.J. 482 (1970), our Supreme Court abolished the theory of interspousal immunity in automobile negligence cases. … Divorce in England was not established until the close of the 17th Century, and then only by Parliament.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TIMOTHY J. CANFIELD (16-12-3619, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2022

Defendant contends the State's response violates the rule established in State v. Samuels, 189 N.J. 236 (2007). … trial court's exercise of A-5586-18 128 discretion that is in line with sentencing principles "should be immune

Graziano v. Mayor & Township Committee

162 N.J. Super. 552 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 13, 1978

Clearly and literally, the bonds of the MUA are not and do not create a debt or obligation of the township. … Appellants’ other contentions, such as that the contract lacks consideration, are clearly lacking in merit. B. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed. N. J. S.

State v. Vogt

342 N.J. Super. 368 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2001

On appeal defendant contends: POINT I THE STATE DID NOT ESTABLISH JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE ITS LAW ON THE FEDERALLY OWNED PORTION OF HIGBEE BEACH. … The *383 defendant clearly violated the state regulations by entering a restricted area. As such, the defendant was clearly guilty of the State violation.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEVEN R. FORTIN (95-09-1197, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 2020

Among those studies that have been undertaken, the observed false positive rates were so high that the method is clearly scientifically unreliable at present." Id. at 87. … Defendant failed to establish any of the three prongs of the Carter test.

Psak, Graziano, Piasecki & Whitelaw v. Fleet National Bank

390 N.J. Super. 199 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 26, 2007

Indeed, the Court in City Check Cashing explicitly held: In. short, in the cheek collection arena, unless the facts establish a special relationship between the parties created by agreement, undertaking or contact, that gives … Clearly, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the discrepancy would have been discovered within a month or two of October 1998.