Case law

Elizabeth v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECT

198 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 1984

"The burden is not upon the Commissioner to establish that the requisite facts exist; [r]ather, the burden is on petitioners to establish that they do not." Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle, 105 N.J. Super. at 114 . … They argue that because this provision of the Solid Waste Utility Control Act deals with the granting of franchise areas by the BPU for which, appellants maintain, qualifying hearings are customarily of a trial-type nature

Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2024

Redistricting Comm'n (In re Establishment of Cong. … While communities of interest and neighborhoods are clearly important, the Legislature did not include those considerations in the MW Law. Second, the role of a court in reviewing compactness is limited.

State v. Rountree

388 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2006

Thus in his case, as in Franklin , the jury verdict itself did not establish the required Graves Act element. … And in a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Long found the distinction the majority drew between convictions on the same day not qualifying, and convictions on consecutive days qualifying,

Banco Popular North America v. Gandi

360 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2003

It was clearly and succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics, 116 N.J. 739 , 563 A. 2d 31 (1989). … We are in no position to determine whether plaintiff can establish its claims by competent, credible evidence.

Errington v. Mansfield Township Board of Education

100 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1968

They are clearly set forth in his comprehensive opinion. In substance, he held that Mrs. Harsha had composed the letter by dint of her own effort and had caused it to be published without authorization from the board. … The proofs fail to establish that Mrs. Harsha was ever “informally authorized” by a majority of the board members to send the letter in question.

Clark v. Wichman

72 N.J. Super. 486 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1962

Div. 1960): "In an action for negligence or malpractice against a physician the plaintiff ordinarily is required to establish that the defendant's treatment or care fell below the standard established and recognized by the … Eisenstodt, supra , which case is clearly distinguishable from the facts sub judice.

In Re Six Month Extension of NJAC

372 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2004

When COAH grants substantive certification, the municipality receives various benefits, including effective immunity from exclusionary zoning litigation. … In order to qualify a municipality for consideration, its motion was required: to comply with established COAH motion practice, and to be served on all objectors or litigants that had participated in first-round substantive

State v. Fernandez

209 N.J. Super. 37 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1986

Defendant claimed that he qualified for a 10 year sentence reduction based upon "good cause." … Super. at 448 ( N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1d(1) held applicable to pre-Code defendant sentenced under Sex Offender Act and transferred to regular prison facility, where a Code provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-9, clearly established *47 that

In re Broking

381 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 2005

in the use of the handgun he is permitted to carry in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection j. of this section and pays the actual costs associated with … Clearly, a verification of the date the officer “retired” cannot be provided until such time as the officer’s application for retirement has been approved.

Tornatore v. Selective Insurance Co. of America

302 N.J. Super. 244 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1997

The vehicle then fled the scene (thus qualifying it as a so-called “phantom” vehicle for the purposes of uninsured motorist coverage). … Indeed, our public policy favoring those who in good faith render emergency care has been strong enough to command a statutory immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1; L. 1987, c. 296, § l. 4 We conclude

Condit v. Director of Motor Vehicles

98 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1967

If there had been only one possible tortfeasor and plaintiff had been mistaken as to his identity, plaintiff would clearly not have been barred against the Eund. … Gassert the Supreme Court held: “It should be emphasized, however, that to prevent the imposition of any possible fraud or abuse upon the Fund, any action instituted against a third person which results in the type of qualifying

JOSEPH KOCH VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-3022-15, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2020

A-5570-17T4 19 immune, "courts should employ an analysis that first asks, 'whether an immunity applies and if not, should liability attach.'" Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. … The burden of proof rests on the public entity to establish immunity. Caicedo, 439 N.J. Super. at 623 (quoting Kain, 436 N.J. Super. at 473).

Daus v. Marble

270 N.J. Super. 241 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1994

Clearly, Jake Marble's allegedly negligent conduct occurred during work hours and on his employer's premises. … Plaintiff has not claimed, indeed he cannot claim, that a forklift qualifies as a recreational vehicle under any reasonable interpretation of the policy language.

State v. Rodriguez

294 N.J. Super. 129 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1996

[utilize] the services of an otherwise qualified interpreter ... … Clearly, the preferred practice is to select a qualified individual, proficient in the language of the party or witness, who has no interest in the outcome of the proceeding. [12] D.

National Union Fire Insurance v. Transportation Insurance

336 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 2001

While it is true that the judge twice made reference to Yaros when he clearly should have referred to Pope, despite the factfinding mistakes, the judge’s ultimate conclusion that Kirbery is not a “borrower” is correct. … unloader is ‘using’ the vehicle, it does not simultaneously establish the unloader’s possession____If it did, ‘one would only need to be an unloader to be a borrower.’ ” Id. at 258 .

Terminal Const. v. Sewerage Auth.

244 N.J. Super. 537 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 1990

Terminal Construction was determined to be the lowest qualified bidder for the sludge facility at approximately the same time. … In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the important public policies advanced by the safeguards established under the APA.

J.W. VS. TOWNSHIP OF LIVINGSTON (L-4228-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2020

These facts established probable cause that he violated the no-contact order. During the course of the phone conversation, the judge asked questions and made comments irrelevant to his ultimate decision. … Since the municipal court judge's finding of probable cause was warranted, he is clearly entitled to absolute immunity for his issuance of an arrest warrant. See N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(b); see also Malik v.

Ellen English v. Lince Group, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2026

They've been clearly, clearly upheld. After defendant and the Township presented their cases, all parties presented summations and the trial court charged the jury. … "Under the TCA, immunity is the rule and liability is the exception." Posey v. Bordentown Sewerage Auth., 171 N.J. 172, 181 (2002).

State of New Jersey v. Antwain T. Waters

439 N.J. Super. 215 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 2015

"In order to overturn a prosecutor's rejection, a defendant must 'clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision constitutes a patent and prosecutor's PTI calculus. … Under that severely limited standard, we cannot say that defendant carried his "heavy burden" to clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion

R & R Marketing, L.L.C. v. Jim Beam Brands Co.

383 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 2006

Jim Beam argued vigorously that the testimony and prior administrative decisions established that nationally advertised has a well known meaning. … Even product placement in movies, under certain circumstances, may qualify.