Case law

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, ETC. (L-6119-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2022

The Borough also sought immunity from being sued by third parties to comply with its fair-housing obligations. … All those facts combine to establish a clear and binding waiver by the Borough. 3. The Time Bar.

In re Hospitals' Petitions for Adjustment of Rates for Reimbursement of Inpatient Services to Medicaid Beneficiaries

383 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2006

A hospital can qualify for DSH payments only if its Medicaid inpatient utilization rate is at least one percent. … The 1995 appeals never reached a state of resolution in which the Division’s position with respect to these matters was clearly expressed.

Dempsey v. Alston

405 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2009

Defendants, and the Department as amicus curiae, argue that plaintiffs have failed to establish that O.D.' … Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Act compromises any recognized First Amendment rights.

In re Dodge

90 N.J. Super. 198 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1966

In a case which is comparable to this one in the sense that a university’s claim to a gift was involved, the court held no gift had been made although the intent to make one in praesenti was clearly established. … It may establish or help to establish intent and will “insure deliberate and unequivocal conduct by the donor and the elimination of questionable or fraudulent claims against him.”

Doremus v. BD. OF ED. OF THE BOROUGH OF HAWTHORNE

7 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 1950

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 … Clearly, there was never any intention to prohibit non-sectarian recognition of God by the State in public transactions and exercises, and New Jersey has recently reaffirmed that intention, for the Preamble to the State Constitution

Helene Fuld Medical Center v. New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services

325 N.J. Super. 423 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1999

The Mercer Board responded with a qualified endorsement of the Fuld request and an endorsement of the St. Francis request. … The opinion begins by stating clearly that, “[s]pecifically, St. *432 Francis proposes to establish an adult closed acute psychiatric unit through the conversion [of open beds].” (Emphasis added).

Brenman v. Demello

383 N.J. Super. 521 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2006

Of course, to qualify as relevant, “the evidence [must have a tendency] to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove,” State v. … Clearly, this argument played a prominent role in the defense, especially in light of the polarity of medical views on causation, and was identical to that found objectionable in Davis.

Gonzalez v. BD. OF ED., UNION CTY.

325 N.J. Super. 244 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1999

First, the construction advanced by petitioner and amicus is in direct conflict with established common law. … In exchange, the appointed superintendent is given the security of a determinate term, immunizing him or her from dismissal at the whim of future boards.

Scotch Plains Tp. v. Town of Westfield

83 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1964

The distinction has proved useful to restrain the ancient concept of municipal tort immunity, not because of any logic in the distinction, but rather because sound policy dictated that governmental immunity should not envelop … The planning board gave its qualified approval to this choice, contingent upon certain land in the North Scotch Plains area being used for a park and recreational area.

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Massey

188 N.J. Super. 631 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1983

that the motor vehicle was at the time said accident occurred, in the possession of some person other than the owner without the owner’s consent and that the identity of such person cannot be ascertained, any qualified person … The intent clearly included giving much needed relief to the Fund. Gorton v. Reliance Ins. Co., 77 N.J. 563, 571 (1978); Motor Club of America Ins. Co. v.

In Re Estate of Gillmore

101 N.J. Super. 77 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1968

A domicile once established continues until it is superseded by a new one. … Pursuant to the authority and the duty thus cast upon him to provide for his ward's person and property, he duly qualified as guardian.

SPECIAL CARE v. Board of Review

327 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2000

Clearly, it lacked authority to delay its disposition eleven months, when we specifically ordered it to "make its determination after remand within forty-five days." … The obvious purpose of § 3304 in demanding adherence to these minimum standards is to establish uniformity, which protects the unemployed in a consistent and predictable manner. McKay v.

D'Ippolito v. Maguire

33 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1955

The clearly expressed language of N.J.S.A. 40:47-6 makes readily apparent the will of the Legislature. … The natural, ordinary and general meaning of terms and expressions may be limited, qualified and specialized by those in immediate association.

Shahmoon Indus., Inc. v. Dept. of Health, NJ

93 N.J. Super. 272 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1966

The State did not at the hearing specifically qualify Wortreich as an expert in the air pollution detection field, nor did appellant challenge his qualifications in that regard. … Wortreich's testimony was clearly in the category of expert opinion testimony, and that kind of testimony frequently proceeds upon the basis of comparable assumptions.

State v. Perez

218 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1987

Furthermore it is well-established that the qualifications of experts are left to the discretion of the trial court, and its decision is conclusive unless clearly shown to be erroneous. State v. Campisi, 42 N.J. … In rejecting this claim, the Arizona Supreme Court reasoned that since the police officer was properly qualified as an expert and his testimony was subject to cross-examination, there was no abuse of discretion in permitting

Ginnelly v. Continental Paper Co.

57 N.J. Super. 480 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 26, 1959

Artificial illumination was clearly needed and it was not being provided (only 3 out of 14 bulbs on the second story were functioning on the day preceding the accident). … This ruling was clearly correct and in no sense an abuse of the trial judge's discretion. In Woyak v. Konieske, 237 Minn. 213 , 54 N.W. 2 d 649, 33 A.L.R. 2 d 1241 ( Sup.

Barone v. D. of Human Serv., Div. of Med. Asst.

210 N.J. Super. 276 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1986

whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings upon which the agency based application of legislative policies; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly … Vesta Co., 45 N.J. 301, 315 (1965), and the traditional judicial reluctance to declare a statute void, a power to be delicately exercised unless the statute is clearly repugnant to the Constitution. Brunetti v.

Nj Transit Pba v. Transit Corp.

290 N.J. Super. 406 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1996

All employees who qualify for this examination will be required to sign a form reflecting their consent to drug and alcohol tests. B. … a search and seizure, is unreasonable in light of established constitutional interpretation.

Yacker v. Weiner

109 N.J. Super. 351 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1970

Testimony was given by a well-qualified builder that anyone computing the probable cost for the construction of the buildings in 1965 would have arrived at a figure in the neighborhood of $900,000. … The claim of the receiver for Rooney is established at $5,449.94, together with interest at 6% from December 31, 1966 through the date of payment.

OPEN DOOR ALCOHOLISM PROG. v. Bd. of Adjustment

200 N.J. Super. 191 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1985

Every effort would be made to establish as much of a family atmosphere as possible with the residents sharing in the cooking and living responsibilities and eating together. … Clearly, their living arrangements would not be the functional equivalent of a family unit.