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."

News Printing Co. v. TOTOWA BOR.

211 N.J. Super. 121 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 1986

Clearly, government has no power to restrict such activity because of its message. … As noted, it is clearly unreasonable to say that the right to have the box displayed must depend upon the discretion of the merchant and, at that, only a merchant who sells newspapers from his own establishment as part of

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

State v. Ricks

326 N.J. Super. 122 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1999

Thus, defendant must demonstrate that the judge's answer constituted plain error, such that it was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. … A jury is not qualified to say without guidance which purposes for possessing a weapon are unlawful and which are not.

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.

Fisher v. BD. OF ED. OF UNION TP.

94 N.J. Super. 359 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1967

Clearly, then, the fact that the equipment is electrically energized is not controlling in determining the category to which it should be assigned. … As already noted, all qualified contractors, be they heating or electrical, may bid for the proposed work under the revised specifications.

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.

Rachele Louise Castello v. Alexander M. Wohler, M.D.

446 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 2016

Edoga was qualified to testify as an expert because he satisfied the PFA, particularly the additional statutory requirements enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A- 41(a)(1) and (2). … essential; (3) an explanation for counsel's failure to request an extension of the time for discovery within the original time period; and (4) the circumstances presented were clearly

EDWARD FOX VS. CATHERINE FOX (FM-04-0355-16, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2019

Naturally, to establish an asset's appreciation, its value must be established at both the beginning and the end of the valuation period. … Because the burden to establish an asset's immunity "rest[s] upon the spouse who asserts it," Painter, 65 N.J. at 214, we hold that Edward must prove that EBN had value in 2004.

Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co.

238 N.J. Super. 8 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 1989

Yet the Supreme Court in Fosgate clearly stated that *28 in a situation where the malpractice or other tortious act aggravates a preexisting disease or condition, the innocent plaintiff should not be required to establish … Fireco of New Jersey, 81 N.J. 548, 566 , 410 A. 2d 674 (1980). [8] This statement would appear to qualify the contrary determination of this court in Namm v. Charles E. Frosst & Co., 178 N.J.

Dilts v. Franklin Township Planning Board

272 N.J. Super. 253 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1993

“The applicants offered no testimony that the proposed sixty-two acre parcel would have qualify [sic] for separate farmland preservation funds.” … The ARDA is the enabling legislation for the establishment of county, state and local development boards.

T.S. VS. TOWNSHIP OF IRVINGTON AND ANTHONY VAUSS (L-7401-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STTATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2019

"Although defamatory, a statement will not be actionable if it is subject to an absolute or qualified privilege. … A statement made in the course of judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings is absolutely privileged and wholly immune from liability." Erickson v.

State v. Louf

126 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1973

In Varelli , as the court held, there were clearly two separate conspiracies: (1) to hijack polaroid equipment, and (2) to hijack silver shipments. … By way of analogy, one of two co-conspirators may be convicted, although his co-conspirator has secured immunity from prosecution by becoming a witness for the prosecution. People v. Gilbert, 26 Cal.

Wasserman v. Wharton

223 N.J. Super. 394 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1988

Newark/Royal argued before the trial court that the release consequently immunized it from plaintiffs' claim respecting UIM benefits. … It is not necessary for the client in order to establish a breach of duty to prove that he laid out for the broker the elements of a contract of insurance.

OXFORD CONSUMER DIS. CO. v. Stefanelli

102 N.J. Super. 549 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 1968

The business of making such loans is restricted to licensees qualifying under the terms of the act. Section 2. … There is possibly also implicated the privileges and immunities clause of the United States Constitution, asserted derivatively in this action by plaintiff on behalf of its shareholders. Cf. Hess v.

O'Boyle v. Dist. I Ethics Comm.

421 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 12, 2011

to review a decision of the [C]ommittee or to compel the [C]ommittee *813 to prosecute a grievance, (2) [] plaintiff has no constitutional right to have [the] [C]ommittee review his grievance, and (3) [] defendants have immunity … Considering, in part, the available resources and the backlog of cases, the Supreme Court clearly had a rational basis for streamlining the disciplinary grievance intake procedure.

Montiel v. JOANNE INGERSOLL & ALLSTATE INS. CO.

347 N.J. Super. 246 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 2001

The original discovery period was established based on the rules in effect prior to September 2000 under the differentiated case management program in effect in this vicinage. … Barbera, 328 N.J.Super. 424 , 746 A. 2d 68 (App.Div.2000) (in the context of late filings, attorney carelessness does not qualify as exceptional circumstances) and Packaging Industries Ltd. v.

Coleman v. Wilson

123 N.J. Super. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 1973

The Legislature in making the change spoke clearly as to its intent by stating in N.J.S.A. 2A:115-1.1a: The Legislature finds that the standards of obscenity now enunciated in chapter 115 of Title 2A of the New Jersey Statutes … Ernest Van Den Haag who qualified as a psychologist, a psychoanalyst and a sociologist testified as to both of the motion pictures: (1) their dominant theme taking them as a whole appealed to a prurient interest in sex; (

Spectraserv v. MIDDLESEX UTIL.

416 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 18, 2010

The statute establishes specific means to effectuate this mandate. Custodians of public records must develop forms for OPRA requests that "provide space for... a brief description of the government record sought." … And although OPRA clearly contemplates the production of such records on an accelerated basis, Spectraserv's demand does not so qualify because, for reasons already stated, it was not authorized by law. III.

State v. Porro

152 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1977

He may be a willing witness or one who will be given immunity from prosecution in order to obtain his testimony. … "The application shall point out clearly the particulars sought by the defense."