Case law

Anna K. D'antonio v. the Newark Public Schools, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2025

The first is "by establishing . . . that the plaintiff was better qualified for the position than the minority candidate selected." Ibid. … Plain error occurs when the error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result."

State v. Carrano

27 N.J. Super. 382 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 1953

was presented to him for that purpose, `until he sees his counsel' or `on the advice of counsel,' and for no other reason, it was not prejudicial error to admit such written confession, it appearing that the writing was clearly … Our examination of the record reveals that Troopers Tittle and Baluit were qualified before the court as experts in matters of horse racing information and knowledge of *389 the use of racing forms and the like.

Polyard v. Terry

148 N.J. Super. 202 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 1977

The legislative intent clearly would not apply to this most substantial injury. Our courts have held that the $1,000 limitation is not a total bar to recovery. … Such a defense has not been clearly established in the law of this State, despite dictum in some New Jersey opinions. Contrary decisions from other jurisdictions are not persuasive here.

Kazanjian v. Atlas Novelty Co.

34 N.J. Super. 362 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 1955

Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, 2 N.J. 136, 152 (1949). … Div. 1950), plaintiff's 40 years of experience as a rug merchant should serve to qualify him. Leider v. Pitock, 15 N.J. Super. 592 ( App. Div. 1951).

Anchor Law Firm, Pllc v. the State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2025

Fundamentally, Paragraph 3 of Section 2 establishes that the Supreme Court "has jurisdiction over the legal profession." Williams & Chen, at 166. … The Court has also directed that persons who file ethics complaints against attorneys have immunity for those actions. In re Hearing on Immunity of Ethics Complainants, 96 N.J. 669, 679 (1984).

Landau v. Township of Teaneck

231 N.J. Super. 586 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1989

"the essence of the conditional use concept is that every site within the district which is able to meet the objective standards for suitability is entitled to qualify for that use." 199 N.J. Super. at 477-8 . … The selling of public lands by the Township of Teaneck is clearly proprietary and binding if regular and reasonable.

S.M. v. A.W.

281 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1995

She acted friendly and appeared to enjoy the activities taking place in the retail establishment. … The maternal grandmother qualified as such an interested person and had standing to bring this action to have her granddaughter returned to her.

Southern Burl. Cty. NAACP v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel

119 N.J. Super. 164 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1972

This would result in an expense for a single-family home that would not qualify for federal subsidized programs *168 within the reach of the resident plaintiffs herein neglected. … They argue there is a desperate need for affirmative municipal action within parameters established by the court. In Hawkins v.

State v. Grant

196 N.J. Super. 470 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 1984

The trial court agreed with the municipal court judge that defendant qualified as a repeat offender and imposed essentially the same penalty. This appeal followed. … Indeed, the evidence is clearly to the contrary.

Shambaugh v. Wolk

302 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1996

Thus, R. 5:1 and R. 5:2 address, respectively, cognizability and venue____ (emphasis added) As such, the full text of the Note clearly establishes that the revised Part V of the Rules does not portend to enhance the jurisdiction … Clearly, plaintiff’s mother has indicated to her treating physician, Dr.

In the Matter of the New Jersey Solar Transition Pursuant to P.L. 2018, C. 17 – Application for Certification of Solar Facility, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 2025

A-0424-24 6  We are bound to apply clearly defined statutory terms. State v. S.B., 230 N.J. 62, 68 (2017). … Guided by well-established principles of statutory construction and our decision in In re Implementation of L. 2012, c. 24 (Millenium), 443 N.J. Super. 73 (App.

In the Matter of the Expungement of the criminal/juvenile Records of N.R.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2024

If the plain language "clearly reveals the Legislature's intent, the inquiry is over." State v. Harper, 229 N.J. 228, 237-38 (2017). … The plain language in N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3 clearly requires a ten-year waiting period before eligibility for expungement under the "clean slate" statute.

Todiss v. Garruto

34 N.J. Super. 333 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1955

. *338 It is the settled rule that in the absence of some qualifying or oppugnant expression, a broker who is duly engaged ordinarily earns his commission when he procures for the owner a purchaser ready, able, and willing … What amount of damages the vendors incurred as a result of the breach of the contract by the vendee was not at that time definitely established.

State v. C.H.

264 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1993

The testimony defendant attempted to elicit clearly constituted hearsay. … If this had been a traditional medical issue setting, her statement, phrased as it was, would not have been competent to establish medical probability, the standard necessary to establish injury or causation.

STEVEN I. GROSS VS. KEVIN A. IANNUZZI (L-3360-14 AND L-6543-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2019

would clarify the scope and applicability of the exemption by changing the definition of "highest applicable flood elevation standard" and "new FEMA base flood elevation," and by establishing … In amending the Act, our Legislature has clearly determined to use a different definition of "structure." Further, the Act does not require a finding of "substantial" damage.

In the Matter of the Estate of Michael D. Fisher, II

443 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2015

child by willfully forsaking him [or her]" and stated that the "court's task [was] to determine whether the actions and inactions of [Fisher], in the context of the previous court orders limiting his parental rights, qualify … Thus, for example, the burden of establishing lack of testamentary capacity is on the one who contests the will being offered for probate.

Pine Grove Manor v. Director, Div. of Taxation

68 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1961

Again, we have a statement qualifying the purported nonprofit features. … Thus the facts and circumstances in each case must clearly and convincingly establish the right to exemption within the statute granting exemption, otherwise the general rule is invoked which subjects `all property to a just

Kuehn v. Pub Zone

364 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 2003

Clearly, no negligence on the part of the plaintiff can be found under the former scenario. Nor do we find negligence as the result of any statement by plaintiff urging that the Pagans be permitted to remain. … Knowledge gained in this fashion is sufficient to render an expert qualified and to serve as a foundation for his opinion.

Bloom v. Clara Maass Medical Center

295 N.J. Super. 594 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 1996

Clearly, the hearing and appeal procedures mandated by the bylaws were not triggered in this case. … Both doctors and their patients may suffer if otherwise qualified physicians are wrongly denied staff privileges.

Synnex Corp. v. ADT SECURITY SERV. INC.

394 N.J. Super. 577 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2007

We reject the arguments Synnex presents in support of its conditional cross-appeal as clearly without merit. … We also indicated that a court should consider "whether the limitation is a reasonable allocation of risk between the parties or whether it runs afoul of the public policy disfavoring clauses which effectively immunize parties