Case law

Borough of Milford v. Arnold

382 N.J. Super. 83 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2005

Avenue and established a sewer connection ordinance on July 7,1969. … They may have felt the Borough owned something, but were not sure what, and thus could not qualify Railroad Avenue as a full street for zoning purposes.

Agisim v. TILLOU REALTY CO., INC.

56 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1959

Marsha desires upon completion of high school this year to take a special course of training to qualify as a medical or dental assistant, the cost of which for one year will be $500, besides books and other materials. … Thus, the legislative purpose to permit husbands and wives to convey to each other, in order to extinguish their respective rights and to release their curtesy and dower to each other, is established.

Juliano & Sons Enterprises, Inc. v. Chevron, USA, Inc.

250 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 1991

Moreover, the trial judge held that, unlike in Mazzeo , the parties here, each represented by counsel, clearly expressed their intent in the contract "that this agreement was to last forever." … Section 1(a)(2) of the New Jersey Act establishes the "wait and see" rule by providing that an interest would be valid so long as it does not remain unvested for more than 90 years.

State of New Jersey v. Rolando Terrell

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 29, 2017

The record does not adequately establish the cause. … Their cumulative effect clearly did so.

Hamilton, Johnston v. Johnston

256 N.J. Super. 657 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1992

However, in our view the entry of judgment against the employer and not the plan clearly qualifies as an "error or omission ... of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result." … The trial judge had erred in utilizing the formula without first determining whether it established the fair value of the stock. Ibid.

A.A. v. Attorney General

384 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2006

Having determined that the “special law enforcement concerns” furthered by this Act qualify as “special needs,” we *96 consider whether the identification program established is “reasonable” when “the strength of the government … The database established by this Act cannot be accessed for any such purpose.

Borteck v. RIKER, DANZIG

362 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2003

The Court reasoned that to do so would allow the firm the benefits of a covenant that was clearly contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Ibid.; see also Katchen v. … It cites the requirement that a partner must be fifty-five years of age to qualify for the early retirement benefit.

AA Ex Rel. BA v. ATTY. GENERAL

384 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2006

Having determined that the "special law enforcement concerns" furthered by this Act qualify as "special needs," we consider whether the identification program established is "reasonable" when "the strength of the government's … ) requires no findings beyond the qualifying conviction or adjudication and involves no public disclosures that could stigmatize or damage reputation.

Ss v. Es

243 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1990

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert appointed by the court. b. The court, upon reasonable request by a party, shall order that independent tests be performed by other qualified experts. c. … Plaintiff failed to establish, through documentary submissions or testimony, an articulable suspicion defendant is the father of her child.

State v. Lopez

359 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2003

At trial, Detective Conway, without being first qualified as an expert witness and without objection from defense counsel, testified that the orange strainers recovered are typically used by drug dealers to sift cocaine. … We are also convinced that the prosecutor's misstatement of law, when considered in the context of the evidence presented here, was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. State v.

Brenda Zadjeika v. Nj American Water

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2026

The motion judge next determined that HSTC was immune under N.J.S.A. 59:4-10. … The doctrine is clearly implicated here.

Bankers Trust Co. v. NY, Etc., Animals

23 N.J. Super. 170 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 1952

The League may not refuse to purchase and maintain the farm and then, by invoking cy pres, thwart testator's clearly expressed intention. … Distribution of the residuary bequest was reserved until the name or names of *188 such qualified organization or organizations was submitted to and approved by the court.

Gerardo v. NJ State Parole Bd.

221 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1987

. *446 We find the discovery contention to be clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). … The right to be represented by an attorney or other qualified person. 3. The right to remain silent. 4.

Schisano v. Brickseal Refractory Co.

62 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 1960

Certainly it cannot be said that as a matter of law Ottino's act was so clearly warranted by the circumstances that no jury could properly conclude that he acted hastily or unreasonably. … It was plaintiff's burden of proof to establish that Ottino, "though overly aggressive in adopting methods not authorized by his employer," was nevertheless carrying out the duties of his employment and with the purpose of

Silagy v. STATE OF NJ AND COUNTY OF MERCER

101 N.J. Super. 455 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1968

It is alleged these payments clearly arose from the employer-employee relationship; therefore the sole issue as to this portion of the appeal is whether the petitioner was injured in an accident arising out of and in the … However, there are various situations in which the control test is not the dispositive factor *460 in establishing an employer-employee relationship.

Shapiro v. Mertz

368 N.J. Super. 46 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2004

The Shapiros contend that Andrew is well qualified on the merits because of his experience and dedicated service. … Under these definitions, Kathleen clearly falls within the scope of the Ethics Law. The Ethics Law was enacted in 1991, L. 1991, c. 29, based upon the Legislature's findings that: a.

State v. Harris

298 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1997

It is thus apparent that the existence of the conspiracy and defendant’s participation were established wholly apart from the hearsay declarations. V. … We are nevertheless clearly convinced that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Baker

270 N.J. Super. 55 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1994

Defendant's other ineffective assistance of counsel arguments relating to the conduct of his trial involve matters of trial strategy within the discretion of defense counsel and are clearly without merit. … The Constitution does not require that sentencing should be a game in which a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.

US BANK, NA v. Hough

416 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 2010

Plaintiff also contends that if we prohibit it from proceeding with its foreclosure action, Hough "would clearly have been unjustly enriched," when, in fact, her own acts or omissions materially contributed to the mortgage … To implement the legislative process of the FHA, the Legislature established COAH, N.J.S.A. 52:27D-305a, and appointed the HMFA as the agency to "establish affordable housing programs to assist municipalities in meeting the

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Josephson

261 N.J. Super. 428 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1993

Clearly the Legislature knows how to express a clear manifestation of its intent to overturn a Supreme Court decision, see, e.g., N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.7 (overruling Kelly v. … N.J. 235, 251 , 486 A. 2d 318 (1985), inviting the Legislature "to consider the seemingly anomalous and conflicting policies that have resulted from the retention of the military compensation law and the elimination of immunity