Case law

In Re Appeal of Lembo

151 N.J. Super. 242 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1977

For present purposes at least, the key word in both provisions is "class," defined by N.J.S.A. 11:3-1 as * * * a group of positions in the classified service, established under this subtitle sufficiently similar in respect … There is, moreover, nothing in subchapter 15 of the Civil Service Commission's rules dealing with assignments and transfers ( N.J.A.C. 4:1-15.1 to 15.7, inclusive) which appears to contradict what seems to be the clearly

In re Authorization for Freshwater Wetlands Statewide General Permit 6

433 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 9, 2013

Consequently, appellants’ challenge to the Department’s action does not qualify for an adjudicatory hearing unless they establish that one or more of their constitutional right are at stake. … They “need not be given the same weight, and some factors will clearly be more relevant in a given situation than others.” Ibid.

New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission v. Power Motors, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2025

O'Connor explained the 1 Only businesses established before March 6, 2006, qualified for an exemption from the MVC's firewall requirement under N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.4(d). … Because there was no evidence establishing a second business had operated at the 30 State Route 31 prior to March 6, 2006, the Administrator determined Applicants failed to qualify for an exemption from the firewall requirement

In Re

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2017

As we explained in Silver, "[b]y its plain terms," the 2003 regulation "prescribe[d] a two-prong standard to establish misconduct." Id. at 53. … It is well-established that, when reviewing an 19 A-4636-14T3 agency's adoption of a regulation on appeal, the scope of review is "both narrow

In Re

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2017

As we explained in Silver, "[b]y its plain terms," the 2003 regulation "prescribe[d] a two-prong standard to establish misconduct." Id. at 53. … It is well-established that, when reviewing an 19 A-4636-14T3 agency's adoption of a regulation on appeal, the scope of review is "both narrow

Terminal Const. Corp. v. Bergen, Etc., Authority

34 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1954

In dealing with this problem at the trial the contractor produced expert evidence to establish that the word "settlement" as used in the specifications had an established technical meaning in the engineering field. … But the record discloses clearly the basis for the controversy on this point, that Lincoln's superiors had established the engineer's position and that the Authority was well aware of the nature of the controversy.

Town of Hammonton v. Civil Service Commission

82 N.J. Super. 64 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 1964

(Emphasis added) *68 The Commission asserts that DeLaurentis acquired no tenure by virtue of his appointment and may now qualify for the position only by taking the necessary Civil Service examination and otherwise satisfying … As respondent's very informative brief indicates, local authorities may tend to view the advent of Civil Service as a threat *71 to the established order.

State v. Crutcher

313 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 1998

VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS AND DEFENDANT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BY THREATENING DEFENSE WITNESS MICHAEL COBB WITH CRIMINAL PROSECUTION WHICH CAUSED THE WITNESS TO INVOICE A CLEARLY … [However,] “the mere fact that a house was built for the purpose of serving as a place of human habitation, and that it is entirely suitable therefor, will not be sufficient to qualify it as a dwelling so far as the law is

Nj Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. Ac

389 N.J. Super. 97 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

The law clearly favors keeping children with their natural parents and resolving care and custody problems within the family. … Such a statement would invariably be admissible as substantive as well as impeaching evidence, or it would most probably qualify as an admission or declaration against interest under 803(b)(1) and 803(c)(25).

Janiec v. State

87 N.J. Super. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 1965

If properly qualified as competent evidence they would clearly have some evidential value on the factual issue in question. … At the hearing on remand of this matter the State should attempt to establish the competency of these records as evidence under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, N.J.S. 2A:82-34 et seq., or any other applicable

Arevalo v. Saginaw MacHine Systems

344 N.J. Super. 490 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 26, 2001

We reverse because the product line exception established in Ramirez v. … Ramirez, however, may not be read, as did the trial court, to suggest that an existing manufacturer is immune from liability after its sale of the alleged offending product line simply because a plaintiff's injury did not

JOHN PAFF VS. TRENTON BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-2241-18, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2020

In Tumpson, the Court applied the test established in Blessing v. … A-5360-18T2 12  Thus, the OPMA establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme with limited remedies that is clearly intended to cover the field.

Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co. v. LaCroix

390 N.J. Super. 277 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 2007

The facts, which were established in the bench trial, are not in dispute. … N.J.S.A. 17:30E-3(m) provided: "No person shall . . . be deemed a qualified applicant . . . if timely payment of premium is not tendered." Ibid.

State v. Garfole

148 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1977

Clearly, lie had concluded those crimes were all committed by the same person. … This witness was qualified to testify after an identification vow dire, but for unexplained reasons the prosecutor did not call her to testify.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LAVAR REYNOLDS (15-08-0671, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 2021

LEOSA preempts state laws by granting qualified immunity to certain law enforcement officers and allowing those individuals to carry concealed firearms. See 18 U.S.C. § 926B. … carry a firearm; (3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers; (4) meets standards, if any, established

County of Morris v. Riverview Condominiums, Inc.

304 N.J. Super. 322 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 23, 1997

Clearly, the John Street site was contemplated as a major component of the plan that would achieve that goal, but the parties to the exclusionary zoning suit were realistic to contemplate that, during the six-year period … Prospective need “is the share of the total projected population that will qualify for low- and moderate-income housing.” N.J .A.C. 5:92 App. A. at 92-49.

O'NEILL v. State Highway Dept.

77 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 26, 1962

The trial court granted a motion to dismiss the first count on the ground of sovereign immunity. *264 The second count alleges that plaintiff is entitled to possession of the land described in the complaint; that defendants … The language of the comment clearly points to an awareness of those particular cases in mandamus and quo warranto where a jury trial was constitutionally guaranteed.

In re the Adoption of Amendments to Northeast

435 N.J. Super. 571 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2014

In her decision, the ALJ summarized the testimony of the seventeen witnesses presented by the parties, all of whom were qualified as experts in their fields. … That deference is clearly applicable in this case.

State v. Conners

125 N.J. Super. 500 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1973

The Supreme Court set forth a caveat at the conclusion of its opinion: It is, of course, most essential, in view of the heavy impact the result can have, that proper administration of the test be clearly established before … This includes full proof that the equipment was in proper order, the operator qualified and the test given correctly (as well as the fact that the defendant consented orally or in writing). [ 42 N.J. at 171 emphasis added

State v. Bartell

15 N.J. Super. 450 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 1951

Watson to be registered on the registry list of an election district, knowing that such persons or one of them was not qualified and entitled to vote therein. … The rule is stated in Jones Ev., § 821, thus: `Although the court may exercise a reasonable discretion in regulating or limiting *455 the cross-examination, yet it is clearly error to exclude cross-examination on subjects