Case law

Wilkerson v. CO Porter MacHinery Co.

237 N.J. Super. 282 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1989

The real question is whether the product-line theory of successor liability as carved out in Ramirez is so narrow as to exclude (and immunize) a purchaser of assets in bankruptcy. … However, there are four established exceptions to the general rule of corporate successor nonliability in asset acquisitions.

Chad Jordan v. Sweet Haven Farms, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 2025

On de novo review, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Rowe v. … Rather, defendants' representations were clearly within their control and are reasonably considered ordinary obligations under the Act.

Higgins v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas

282 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1995

That statement was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to plaintiff. … A fair reading of the record as a whole establishes ample evidence to support Dr.

Anfuso v. Seeley

243 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1990

But this principle must be qualified where land has a unique character and a statewide policy designates what uses are appropriate for such land. … "Unique suitability" is a well-established category of special reasons. Ward v. Scott, 16 N.J. 16, 22 , 105 A. 2d 851 (1954).

Katchen v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.

457 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2019

Div. 2005), we noted the well-established principal that clear language in the policy should be interpreted as written. Id. at 538 , 887 A.2d 166 (citing Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. … Such qualifying provisions should be construed in a common sense and logical fashion in accordance with the language used. [ 271 N.J. Super. 409 , 419-20, 638 A.2d 924 (App. Div. 1994) (citing Kampf v.

Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories

257 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 1992

The quoted instruction, however, clearly addresses the question of the reasonableness of Lederle's conduct and places the burden of proof on Lederle. … In our view, he established the requisites for admissibility under Evidence Rule 63(13). See State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27, 29 , 499 A. 2d 1363 (1985).

Tanis v. Township of Hampton

306 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 1997

event, the occasional flights in and out of the property since 1970 were insufficient to establish a nonconforming use. … Durrett, supra, upholding a finding that “an airstrip was not customarily associated with residential use” and stating “[a] rare association of uses cannot qualify as customary, though the uses need not be joined in a majority

Frances Parker, Etc. v. John W. Poole, M.D.

440 N.J. Super. 7 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2015

Furthermore, it is well established that a treating doctor testifying as a fact witness is permitted to testify about the cause of the patient's disease or injury, because causation is an essential part of diagnosis and … It is therefore immaterial whether these other utterances would have been independently receivable as the testimony of a qualified witness. . . .

Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc.

177 N.J. Super. 279 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1981

Moreover, we reject defendant's argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish a standard of care as to the adequacy of the measures taken to protect its customers. … In any event, the question of proximate cause here was clearly for the jury. See Rappaport v. Nichols, supra 31 N.J. at 203 ; Martin v. Bengue, Inc., 25 N.J. 359, 374 (1957); Vadurro v.

MICHAEL MORRIS VS. JOSEPH DEMARCO (L-2666-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2019

When qualified local residents cannot be found to fill positions, the Ordinance provides for an exception: e. Specific Positions and Employment Exemption. … "Dismissal is the appropriate remedy where the pleading does not establish a colorable claim and discovery would not develop one." Ibid.

ISRAEL BLUM VS. TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD (L-0538-17, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2020

Their pleadings established they had no constitutionally protected property interest in the initial rental voucher. … In view of our disposition of plaintiffs' arguments, we need not address Monmouth County PHA's qualified immunity claim. Affirmed.

State v. Devlin

234 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1989

Clearly, the evidence relied upon by the State to establish the recklessness required to prove death by auto went far beyond the mere proof that defendant was intoxicated, which was only a component of defendant's recklessness … The judge must first determine a tentative sentence that comports with the strictures and guidelines that the Code establishes for a third-degree crime.

City of Plainfield v. DEPT. OF HEALTH

412 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 2010

As we previously noted, Muhlenberg was established in Plainfield in 1877. … It admitted, though, that "[i]ndigent minority and other medically underserved patients have clearly relied on Muhlenberg ... for healthcare services. ...

HORIZON BLUE CROSS v. State

425 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2012

To qualify as an HSC, a corporation must be "organized, without capital stock and not for profit, for the purpose of (1) establishing, maintaining and operating a nonprofit health service plan and (2) supplying services in … However, it is undisputed that plaintiff was the only HSC in the state and the only such carrier to qualify for the 1/8th Rule.

In the Matter of Tanaya Tukes

449 N.J. Super. 143 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 2017

relevant law; (2) whether the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, the administrative agency clearly … Applying these principles here, we discern no basis for disturbing the Commission's decision establishing appellants' layoff rights.

State v. REB

385 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

In this case, we first question whether Guenther established a "new rule." … Defense counsel countered, however, that he "heard fairly loud and clearly [the judge's] voice indicating that the boy couldn't be any more heartbroken. I heard that very clearly and I don't hear the best."

Gregg v. Township Committee

232 N.J. Super. 34 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1989

Although the award of fees is discretionary, it was clearly the intent of Congress in passing section 1988 that fees be awarded as a matter of course. See Zarcone v. … Turning first to good faith, it is well-established, and both parties agree, that the good faith of a defendant, standing alone, may not justify a denial of attorney's fees under section 1988. See Hutto v.

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. N.D., J.P. and A.J. in the Matter of E.D.

435 N.J. Super. 488 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 2014

The Division makes a similar argument here, which the precedent established in A.L. compels us to reject. … In this regard, we note that Edgar's premature delivery and low birth weight might be interpreted by a qualified expert as being related to Natalie's ingestion of cocaine.

Cesar Carit Ruiz v. William T. Bourke

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 2025

The plaintiff "bears the burden of establishing those elements 'by some competent proof.'" Davis v. … Further, '[t]his immunity [is not] disturbed by the exercise of merely such general superintendence as is necessary to insure that the []contractor performs his agreement . . . .'

Albrecht v. Correctional Medical Services

422 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 2011

In Nagim the judge held that the AOM Statute protected a firm comprised of licensed persons even though it did not qualify as a licensed person itself. 369 N.J.Super. at 109 , 848 A. 2d 61 . … As a result, CMS failed to establish that it was entitled to the limited protections available to professional corporations. Summary judgment was improvidently granted to it on this ground.