Case law

Kathleen Krupinski N/K/A Kathleen Gocklin v. Michael Krupinski

437 N.J. Super. 159 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 2, 2014

This clearly constitutes a disputed issue of fact concerning what may or may not have been anticipated or discussed that cannot be resolved without … We do not foreclose that possibility in the event, on remand, the parties choose to pursue this issue and establish an appropriate record.

Philipp v. Stahl

344 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 2001

Hatamyar, Interstate Establishment, Enforcement, and Modification of Child Support Orders, 25 Okla. City U.L.Rev. 511, 515-16 (2000); Angela R. … The "qualified medical support order" merely qualified plaintiff as "an alternate recipient” to receive the children’s medical benefits available through defendant’s group health plan.

Duignan v. Board of Trustees

223 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 1988

The Legislature has established the criteria, and if a petitioner meets the criteria, the benefits must be awarded. … In terms of insult to his body, he clearly sustained a ‘traumatic event.'

City Council of Elizabeth v. Fumero

143 N.J. Super. 275 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 1976

[at 226] Comparing the current statute to its predecessors, the sole qualifying factor contained in each version is that the conduct for which a defense is to be provided must arise out of, or be incidental to, the performance … When interpreting the obligations imposed by a contract of insurance, the court is guided by well established precedent.

Oates v. E. Bergen Cty. Mult. List. Serv.

113 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 1971

On the other hand, defendant has eliminated all such standards as would qualify one for membership. … But there is no proof in this record to establish any such standard.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Allied Crude Vegetable Oil Refining Corp.

89 N.J. Super. 518 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1965

There has been filed in the cause an affidavit of an officer of Irving which indicates that Irving is qualified pursuant to the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948 to transact business in New Jersey only as executor or testamentary … It seeks to demonstrate that the only activities in which Irving engages in New Jersey are those for which it is qualified, pursuant to the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948.

Buckley & Co., Inc. v. State

140 N.J. Super. 289 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1975

The only remaining question is whether the no-damage provisions of Articles 1.2.11 and 1.7.4 immunize the Department from the losses sustained by its breach of contract. … The Department itself, however, has not been able to establish the extent to which the delays were not "beyond the control" of Buckley/Schiavone so to permit the denial of a further extension of time under Article 1.7.4.

Faisal Jameel, Etc. v. Jennifer L. Dember

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2025

We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to establish the conduct prong. Because both prongs are required for plaintiff to overcome the WCA's immunity provision, plaintiff's appeal with respect to HMH fails. … Clearly, if her work day began when she entered the designated lot, it did not end until she left it.

State v. Free

351 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 2002

Kassin had been qualified in other jurisdictions to offer opinions on police interrogation. He noted that Dr. … Clearly, expert opinions are not always hard science. There may be numerous non-scientific areas where experts are allowed to offer opinions, such as the examples I've given.

PEOPLE FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT v. Roberts

397 N.J. Super. 502 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 2008

However, Mayor Roberts qualified for a run-off election for Mayor, and Councilman Ramos, Councilwoman LaBruno and Councilman Cammarano qualified for a run-off election for Council Member at Large. … Clearly, the facts of Garrou bear little similarity to the scenario present here. If at all, Garrou speaks only to the private interest required to enjoin violation of a zoning ordinance.

Davis v. Strazza

380 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2005

The buyers applied for a mortgage and were informed that they would not qualify for a $185,000 loan but would probably qualify for a loan in the amount of $162,000. Ibid. … In such a case, the purchaser clearly bargained for the right to void the land purchase contract when the contingency could not be met____ [Ibid.

State v. Conway

193 N.J. Super. 133 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 1984

Thus there is clearly no demonstration of prejudice. … Nothing would compel the State to seek immunity for him. Of course, defendant cannot be convicted on the statements of coconspirators alone.

State of New Jersey v. Amboy National Bank Account

447 N.J. Super. 142 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2016

Bovery's contention that the gifts were "optional" does not immunize his conduct. … As we have noted, to establish the required nexus to illegal activity, the State does not have to establish that the seized funds constitute evidence that a

Field v. Field

31 N.J. Super. 139 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1954

Field, Jr., has clearly established that he is a bona fide resident of the State of Florida and has resided in the State of Florida continuously for more than ninety days preceding the filing of his bill of complaint; and … M-707-51, at which time she clearly stated that her residence was New Jersey and not Florida where the plaintiff had established his residence.'

STANLEY L. NIBLACK VS. UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE (L-2045-15 AND L-7785-15, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 2018

18 A-0919-16T4 immunity. … For sake of completeness, we simply note that, even assuming a constitutional violation existed here, defendants would clearly enjoy immunity from liability under the circumstances presented.

Resolution Trust v. Associated Gulf

263 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 1993

In this regard, Mizani has offered absolutely no evidence to establish that the facts contained in the sheriff's return were false. Instead, he baldly asserts that Ms. … In this matter, the RTC clearly qualifies for "holder in due course" status.

Bor. of Highlands v. Davis

124 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1973

Ordinance #200 adopted April 8, 1940 established a police department. That ordinance in pertinent part provided: 1. … Grammatically read, the ordinance clearly provides that the Council will appoint not only police officers but also the chief of police, the captain of the police and one or more sergeants of the police.

JOHN A. AMENDOLIA, III VS. GREGORY J. REYES (L-1944-15, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2018

The plain language of N.J.S.A. 38A:13-1.2 clearly and unambiguously provides that the MCL is the exclusive remedy for a militia member injured in the line of duty and the State is immune "for an injury … N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b) provides that "[a]ny liability of a public entity established by [the TCA] is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available

State v. Lawn King, Inc.

150 N.J. Super. 204 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1977

The present case is clearly a "vertical" restraint. The solution is not simple since the vast majority of reported cases are civil in nature. … Should we immunize all franchising operations? How do we define such a system?

Palagonia v. City of Newark

142 N.J. Super. 363 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1976

reasonably have concluded that it would be both cheaper and easier simply conclusively to presume that wives of male members are financially dependent upon their husbands, while burdening female members with the task of establishing … Section 402(g) clearly operates, as did the statutes invalidated by our judgment in Frontiero , to deprive women of protection for their families which men receive as a result of their employment. * * * Since the Constitution