Case law

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT. DEP'T. v. Ventron Corp.

182 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1981

Under the factual circumstances found by the trial judge, as supplemented by other undisputed evidence, the separate corporate form of Wood Ridge, unless pierced, might be a shield behind which Velsicol would be immune from … Clearly, under the act, entities responsible for discharges of hazardous substances are not entitled to indemnification from the Fund. N.J.S.A. 58:10-23.11g(c).

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; (

Keegan v. Estate of Keegan

157 N.J. Super. 279 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1978

Keegan, his father's executor having renounced, qualified as administrator with the will annexed of his father's estate and as general administrator of his mother's estate and of the estate of his brother Robert Edward Keegan … Keegan simply established an order of death. The order being determined, the right of survivorship applies.

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.

Weitzman v. Weitzman

228 N.J. Super. 346 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 1988

Emphasizing the emerging need for post-secondary education, the Court stated that "[i]n general, financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students" and "[i]n *357 … Had he obtained his inheritance at an earlier time, clearly it would have been incumbent upon him to share in this joint, coequal obligation.

Newman v. Delahunty

293 N.J. Super. 491 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 1994

Thus, element one is established. It is clear that the statements concern Mr. Newman, the incumbent Mayor, so element two is established. … Herman, supra, establishes parameters for the award of punitive damages.

Moiseyev v. NEW JERSEY RACING COM'N

239 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1989

The applied vagueness test requires that the regulation fails to proscribe clearly the conduct against which it is being enforced in the matter before the court. Ibid. … In particular, in the area of occupational restrictions, any imprecision in drafting must be assessed with a recognition that the governing body of the occupation or profession is uniquely qualified to assess the meaning

Schmid v. First Camden National Bank, C., Co.

130 N.J. Eq. 254 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1941

Secundum, Corporations ¶ 5 , c., the distinction between the fundamental concept and the exception is clearly stated. … Furniture Workers Union, c., supra , "are not yet clearly established, but are being staked out slowly by accumulating precedents."

Teamsters Local 97 v. State of New Jersey

434 N.J. Super. 393 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2014

For those reasons, a statute "will not be declared void unless it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution." Trautmann ex rel. Trautmann v. … Legislative immunity guaranteed by the Speech or Debate Clause assures that the speech and conduct of legislators acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity will not be made

Amend v. Amend

12 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1950

Like any admission out of court, it could be qualified or contradicted by parol evidence." In Dubies v. Manufacturers' Liability Ins. Co., 96 N.J.L. 107 ( Sup. … Accepting the plaintiff's proof as establishing a prima facie case, the problem remains as to whether on the whole case she has sustained the burden of establishing by the preponderance of the evidence that the decedent suffered

ROBERT ALAM v. AMERIBUILT CONTRACTORS (DIVISION OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 2022

"[A]lthough persons are entitled to retain qualified counsel of their own choice, there is no right to demand to be represented by an attorney disqualified because of an ethical requirement." Reardon v. … Guided by these well-established legal principles, we conclude the judge erred in finding a conflict between Travelers and Alam.

HAZEL PATRICK, ETC. v. ELMWOOD EVESHAM ASSOCIATES, LLC (L-2764-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 2022

On January 9, ICU nurses established decedent's plan of care, which identified the risk of a pressure ulcer as a problem. … Given the complexity of the medical causation in this case, we cannot conclude the motion judge clearly abused his discretion in concluding Nurse Lalli was not qualified to render the requisite opinion on causation, notwithstanding

In Re Environmental Protection Dep't.

177 N.J. Super. 304 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1981

There, the warrantless search involved inspection of a catering establishment's liquor supply to investigate possible violations of the federal excise tax law. … We also note that what is actually involved here is the discharge of pollutants into the environment, an activity which we believe is clearly subject to the regulatory powers of DEP.

State v. Bulna

46 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 1957

The jury had before it not only the well-explained opinion of a qualified expert but also the specimens from which he drew his conclusions. … It is true that counsel's purpose was not too clearly articulated in the questions to the witness excluded at the trial, but the trial court refused to hear an explanation of counsel's purpose.

IN THE MATTER OF THE GLORIA T. MANN REVOCABLE TRUST (P-000330-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2021

The "investment strategy" employed by [defendant] is clearly not in compliance with the requirements of the Prudent Investor Act, thus violating the Act and forming the basis for a damages award. … Notwithstanding any Trust provision, a trustee has a "duty under subsection[] [(a)] . . . of [N.J.S.A. 3B:31-675] to respond to the request of a qualified beneficiary of an irrevocable trust who has attained the age of

State v. Thomas

322 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1999

Judge Barisonek rejected the State's arguments and concluded that the No Early Release Act clearly requires an independent act of force or threat of force against the victim that is additional to the constituent elements … An act of sexual penetration or sexual contact is required to establish an aggravated sexual assault or a sexual assault.

Howard Savings Institution v. Quatra

38 N.J. Super. 174 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1955

The plaintiff Howard was named executor and has qualified. The widow contends that the funds remaining in the two accounts should be paid to the executor for distribution under the will. … At page 329 of 285 U.S., at page 362 of 52 S.Ct. : "* * * A rebuttable presumption clearly is a rule of evidence which has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, * * * and it is hard to see how a statutory rebuttable

State v. King

340 N.J. Super. 390 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2001

In an unpublished opinion, we reversed because defendant failed to give a sufficient factual basis to establish possession of the weapon. State v. King, A-4022-97, decided May 12, 1999. … While the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied only in very compelling circumstances, it may be applied where the interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate that course.

State v. DeRoxtro

327 N.J. Super. 212 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2000

There are two theories under which a hearsay statement which is admissible because it is against the declarant's penal interest, might justify admission of a related statement which does not, by itself, qualify as a declaration … Clearly, the jurors had every right to accept Hurt's testimony, and it would seem they did precisely that.