Case law

In Re Estate of Kovalyshyn

136 N.J. Super. 40 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1975

Further, the settlor manifested his intention clearly, specifically and unequivocally. … This mutual fund declaration of trust manifests clearly the settlor's intention to create and maintain a trust.

State v. Township of South Hackensack

111 N.J. Super. 534 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 1970

We hold the facts in that case to be clearly distinguishable from those here. … This qualified as an acceptance for public use, and was no less so because the actual use of the area taken was currently restricted to freight cars serving only a portion of the public. See Weehawken Tp. v.

Medical Society v. Bakke

383 N.J. Super. 498 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2006

Respondents argue that the Medical Society does not have a sufficiently direct and immediate financial interest in the approval of the acquisition to qualify as a “person aggrieved.” … the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency bases its action; and (3) whether, in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

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.

GEORGE E. PEARSON v. BOROUGH OF KEANSBURG (L-4135-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2022

The Borough asserted immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b) because Wood was immune under N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(a) for exercising the judgment and discretion vested in him in performing an investigation of an unknown male on the … As such, the judge concluded the TCA's discretionary immunity exception to liability applied.

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

State v. Coruzzi

189 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 1983

After hearing the tape Caggiano agreed to cooperate upon receiving an agreement of complete immunity from possible criminal charges. … N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6 a(2) establishes that a term of imprisonment between five and ten years shall be imposed for a second degree crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f) establishes a presumptive sentence of seven years.

Bank of New York v. Raftogianis

418 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2010

The debt in question was clearly payable to American Home Acceptance. … That is clearly contemplated by the Rules of Court.

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

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.

WASHINGTON COMMONS v. Jersey City

416 N.J. Super. 555 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2010

As a threshold matter, we note that just as a "trial court's interpretations of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference[,]" Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. … For reasons already noted, the instant matter appears to so qualify. Reversed.

Mount Olive Complex v. Township of Mount Olive

356 N.J. Super. 500 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2003

The Board designated Budd Lake and certain other sections of the Township as qualifying "centers," but not plaintiffs property. Id. at 523 , 774 A. 2d 704 . … II); that is, to modify or terminate a Mount Laurel consent degree a municipality "`must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and the proposed modification is suitably tailored

INDEMNITY, ETC., OF NA v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of NY

53 N.J. Super. 90 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1958

The policy does not provide, as did many policies issued in former years, that a person seeking to qualify as an additional insured must show that he had permission to drive or operate the automobile from the named insured … Travelers Indemnity Co., 126 N.J.L. 56 ( E. & A. 1940), which defendant Metropolitan says is controlling, is clearly distinguishable.

Rieder v. State, Dept. of Transp.

221 N.J. Super. 547 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 10, 1987

The object of the filing is to accord fair "notice to all persons of the system of highways proposed to be established by subsequent proceedings of condemnation." Bauman v. … Such a restraint would clearly have been de minimis. See Schiavone Const. Co. v. Hackensack, supra, 98 N.J. at 264 .

Jl v. Gd

422 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2010

Between the Act and the DVPM, all three branches of New Jersey Government have participated in establishing the existing protocols utilized in domestic violence cases. … In the present case, however, the minor plaintiff independently qualifies as a "victim" under the Act because she actually had a dating relationship with her alleged abuser.

Acqua Development Corp. v. Township of Holmdel

287 N.J. Super. 578 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1995

Food Establishment Licenses; 5. Water and Sewer Connection Permits; 6. Demolition Permits; 7. Business Sale Licenses; 8. Auction Sale Licenses; 9. Taxi Owner Licenses; 10. Limousine & Livery Licenses; 11. … Nor need there be consideration of the legislative immunities that would insulate the legislative body in enacting the ordinances in question. See however, Timber Properties, Inc. v.

State v. Olivera

344 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 1, 2001

Without proper judicial guidance, jurors are not qualified to make such a determination. We therefore reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial. … Although not objected to, the last sentence was clearly improper. State v. Moore, 304 N.J.Super. 135, 143-44 , 698 A. 2d 1259 (App.Div.1997); (citing Wainwright 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. … Ernest Yan 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; (

Johnson v. Johnson

411 N.J. Super. 161 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2009

However, the acts are similar in that neither is immune to public policy concerns. Mt. Hope Dev. Assoc. v. Mt. Hope Waterpower Project, 154 N.J. 141, 149 , 712 A. 2d 180 (1998). In Mt. … Custody and parenting time clearly implicate public policies that require more expansive review than N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13 allows.

State v. J.A.

398 N.J. Super. 511 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2008

The first factor is clearly the most important, “pivotal consideration.” State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (2005) (citations omitted). … Clearly, the first category is not implicated here.