Case law

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

Felstiner v. Lyons

36 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1955

He had executed his last will and testament on November 30, 1948, and a codicil thereto on December 8, 1949, both of which were duly probated, and the plaintiffs qualified as co-executors and co-trustees. … Was it the testator’s intention to deny his representatives the authority to discharge Lyons and thus establish him in his employment permanently?

Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein, Hammer & Gladstone, PC v. Ezekwo

345 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2001

The earlier order clearly dissatisfied defendant, but *254 she has not articulated how or why the interests of justice required the trial court to reconsider the prior judge's ruling. … Defendant also had no expert testimony to establish proximate causation between the alleged breach of duty and damages.

State v. Pindale

249 N.J. Super. 266 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1991

The commentary continues, It articulates the general mens rea requirements for the establishment of liability, i.e., the general framework for defining the terms which establish the mental element necessary for each of the … Although, in the absence of objection by defense counsel, the excesses of the prosecutor might be considered harmless *287 error and insufficient to qualify as plain error amounting to a miscarriage of justice under the law

CW v. Cooper Health System

388 N.J. Super. 42 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2006

s discharge summary and instructions should have clearly and conspicuously indicated that the test results were pending. … The nature of her claim is not clearly delineated before us. Clearly, she can have no present claim herself for she fortunately was born without the HIV virus.

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

Brown v. City of Paterson

424 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2012

We quote its provisions in full: A The Municipal Court of the city, known as the “Municipal Court of the City of Paterson,” as heretofore established, is hereby continued. B. … This language clearly implies a legislative intent of service continuity. An independent judiciary could not survive without it.

Martin v. Pollard

271 N.J. Super. 551 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 1994

There was no schedule or timetable established for the job. However, on this occasion Pollard supplied only the water seal while Martin supplied the brushes, ladder and related materials. … Rather, the focal inquiry is whether the petitioner “qualifies as a member of the protected group of workmen within the fair meaning of the statute,” or the unprotected class. Ibid.

IN THE MATTER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE AND FIREMAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY DENIAL OF DOLORES ORTEGA'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE SURVIVOR BENEFITS ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 5, 2020

As discussed above, the applicable statutes and regulation clearly state that only domestic partners who are of the same sex are eligible for the survivor benefit. … It is well established that a person deemed eligible for benefits is entitled to a liberal interpretation of the pension statutes, Krayniak v. Bd. of Trs., 412 N.J. Super. 232, 242 (App.

Grimley v. Ridgewood

45 N.J. Super. 574 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1957

So the case is clearly distinguishable from Keller v. Town of Westfield, *583 39 N.J. Super. 430 ( App. Div. 1956), cited by appellant. … In any event, we are of the opinion that all of the circumstances discussed above sufficiently qualify as special reasons within the authority granted by the Legislature to require the conclusion that appellant has failed

Matter of Terminated Aetna Agents

248 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1990

Although the Aetna Agents' agreement provides that commissions will be reduced from 15% to zero, neither the record nor our inquiries at oral argument established that Aetna contemplates any reduction in premium rates which … Super. 298 , 562 A. 2d 239 (App.Div. 1989). *261 As to Aetna's constitutional argument concerning infringement of contract, we find it to be clearly without merit. See Energy Reserves v.

State v. Cook

300 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 19, 1996

crime or of his complicity thereto or therein though the person who ... it is claimed committed the crime has not been prosecuted or convicted, or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity … Where, as here, a defendant does not object to the jury charge at trial, the applicable standard of review is that of plain error, which is an error clearly capable of bringing about an unjust result.

In Re Declaratory Judgment Actions Filed by Various

446 N.J. Super. 259 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 2016

The FHA encouraged and rewarded voluntary municipal compliance by (1) providing a period of immunity from civil lawsuits to towns that participated in the … We conclude such an interpretation is clearly at odds with the FHA's unambiguous definition of prospective need.

Abelson's, Inc. V.N.J. State Board of Optometrists

3 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1949

The requirement is that the use of the title "doctor" be qualified by the use of the word "optometrist." The virtue of this regulation is that it is both informative and protective. … The phrase itself establishes no norm by which the best disposed practitioner could avoid the pitfalls of possible violation and prosecution. In Cherry v.

State v. Kaye

176 N.J. Super. 484 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1980

According to established procedure, the blood sample was also tested for drugs. This test proved to be negative. The two testings consumed the entire blood sample. … The rule was clearly stated in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608 , 36 L.Ed. 2d 235, 243 (1973), as follows: ...

Frame v. Kothari

212 N.J. Super. 498 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 1985

At issue is whether a physician's misdiagnosis was an event perceived by the parents in order to establish a prima facie case for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the guidelines set forth by our Supreme Court … Clearly, defendant's actions in the present situation caused grief to the parents. It is equally apparent that such emotional trauma could be a forseeable result of defendant's alleged negligence.

Brizak v. Needle

239 N.J. Super. 415 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1990

Defendant qualified himself at trial as an expert "in the practice of law as it relates to personal injury matters" with particular "experience and knowledge in the area of medical malpractice." … We are satisfied from a careful review of this record that the other issues raised are clearly without merit and require no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu, LLC, Etc. v. Medical

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2016

MRO also contends that the invoice is neither a consumer contract nor subject to the stringent standards established in Atalese; and it clearly informed BH&P that disputes over the invoice must be arbitrated. … Under state and federal law, a patient has a qualified right to inspect or obtain copies of his or her medical records.

State v. Green

346 N.J. Super. 87 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2001

supra , properly explained the test required to make the routine/non-routine determination: The degree of invasiveness or intrusiveness associated with any particular type of search determines whether or not that search qualifies … Asbury, supra, 586 F. 2d at 976-77 , set out a useful list of factors, distilled from many cases, that have been utilized by courts in determining whether reasonable suspicion has been established.

State v. Holmes

290 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1996

Recognizing that Robert Denike qualified for persistent offender status, we also pointed out that his record prior to the convictions he was appealing "can fairly be described as horrendous." … Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed. 2d 180 (1993), held that, to establish prejudice, a defendant must show not only that the outcome of his trial would have been different absent the alleged deficient representation