Case law

State v. Samarel

231 N.J. Super. 134 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 1989

The law is clearly otherwise. "In a nonjury trial [jeopardy] attaches when the first witness is sworn." State v. Lynch, 79 N.J. 327, 341 (1979). … Defendant next argues that the State failed to establish that the breathalyzer used for testing defendant on December 25, 1985, was then in proper working order.

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 . . . .'

Bergquist v. Penterman

46 N.J. Super. 74 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 1957

A number of exceptions and apparent exceptions to this immunity have arisen. … Plaintiff was not obliged to establish proximate cause by direct, undisputable evidence.

State ex rel. J.L.A.

262 N.J. Super. 78 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1993

a period not to exceed 3 years upon such written conditions as the court deems will aid rehabilitation of the juvenile; (4) Transfer custody of the juvenile to any relative or other person determined by the court to be qualified … No one shall be punished for a crime unless both that crime and its punishment are clearly set forth in positive laws.

Eyrich for Eyrich v. Dam

193 N.J. Super. 244 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 1984

Clearly then, both plaintiffs, and particularly Mr. … Falzone was subsequently qualified by Caputzal v.

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).

State v. Ferguson

273 N.J. Super. 486 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1994

This section shall not apply to any person less than 26 years of age at the time of sentencing who qualifies for a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment without eligibility for parole, pursuant to subsection c. of N.J.S.2C … For each degree of crime the Code establishes ordinary sentences within the maximum and minimum range found in 2C:43-6(a).

Arena v. Saphier

201 N.J. Super. 79 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1985

We recognized, however, that the resulting waiver was a qualified one and was dependent upon the extent to which the information sought was relevant to the issue presented. … In all fairness, a patient should not be permitted to establish a claim while simultaneously foreclosing inquiry into relevant matters.

Essex County Welfare Board v. Department of Institutions & Agencies

147 N.J. Super. 546 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 1977

This constitutional underpinning of the right of judicial review largely immunizes it from legislative curbs. In re Senior Appeals Examiners, 60 N. J. 356 (1972). … Bonnet is clearly distinguishable since (1) plaintiffs there were seeking an injunction against the collection of taxes for the payment of these costs, 141 N. J.

Bolz v. Bolz

400 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 2008

A public employee is not liable for an injury where a public entity is immune from liability for that injury. [ N.J.S.A. 59:3-1.] … Clearly, Herrera is "liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person" subject to any limitation set by the TCA. Ibid. The TCA provides the following significant limitation: d.

Lawrence v. Bauer Publishing & Printing Ltd.

176 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 1980

The testimony of Romankow and Hartnett, witnesses called by defendants, clearly demonstrates that the reporter misinterpreted their comments. … It is not significant that defendants used the qualified "charges may loom" rather than the unconditional "charges have been made" or "will be made." The capacity to destroy reputations is equally great. See Coleman v.

Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc.

67 N.J. Super. 111 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1961

Thus, to qualify as a covenant properly affecting the subject property, the deed provision must define in some measurable and reasonably permanent fashion the proscriptions of and limitations upon the uses to which the premises … This is so because whatever the *118 effect of the burden of the covenant, its benefit is clearly personal to the grantor, securing to him a mere commercial advantage in the operation of his business and not enhancing or

In Re Guardianship of D., C., E. and A.

169 N.J. Super. 230 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 1979

A. 30:4C-15 was established in In re Cope, 106 N. J. Super. 336 (App. … This court finds that the respective foster parents of the children are clearly their psychological parents.

State v. Johnson

216 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1987

Lytwym's testimony clearly qualifies as a prior identification. Cf. State v. Sinclair, 49 N.J. 525, 546-547 (1967) (statements which bear on issues other than identification should not be admitted). … The testimony was clearly adverse as he stated that defendant was not the guilty party. See Gallicchio at 545 .

City of Trenton v. 222 West Associates Fund

350 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 2002

The property further qualified for extension of the preliminary approval until December 31, 1996, under the Permit Extension Act enacted on August 7, 1992, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-133a. … The specific reference to the property at issue, Roebling Mansion, clearly expresses the city’s intention with respect to height limits for the subject property.

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of L.R.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 2026

by clear and convincing evidence that he suffers from a qualifying mental abnormality or personality disorder and is highly likely to sexually reoffend if released. … The record clearly demonstrates L.R. suffers from a qualifying mental A-1346-24 8 abnormality, rendering

New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. Ar

405 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 2009

Singer found that Junior "clearly exhibited many of the indicators suggesting a secure attachment between himself and his ... foster parents." … Judge Nelson found that DYFS failed to establish the second and fourth prongs.

Mary T. Kleine v. Emeritus at Emerson

445 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2016

My understanding is that qualified arbitrators charge $400-500 or more per hour for their services. … that the party from whom an arbitration clause has been extracted must "clearly and unambiguously" agree to a waiver of the right to sue.

Brinkman v. Urban Realty Co., Inc.

15 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 1951

No law has been called to the attention of the court establishing any maximum rentals which could be lawfully charged for the use of the apartments in question. … Section 608 does not contain the language relied upon by plaintiffs to establish their right of action.

Blume v. Denville Tp. Bd. of Educ.

334 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2000

On cross-appeal, defendants argue that "should this matter be remanded for a new trial, the plaintiff should be compelled to produce her evaluations from her prior and subsequent employers, as same are clearly relevant to … Dohrenwend's "qualified" recommendation for Ms. Blume's continued employment: Because of Ms.