Case law

Little Falls Tp. v. Bardin

173 N.J. Super. 397 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 1979

certificate of public convenience are set forth in N.J.S.A. 48:13A-6: *409 No person shall engage, or be permitted to engage, in the business of solid waste collection or solid waste disposal until found by the board to be qualified … [Emphasis supplied] This case is clearly distinguishable from Garden State Farms, above. Here, the statutory language is couched in mandatory phraseology.

In Re Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.

145 N.J. Super. 187 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 13, 1976

Sullivan, 47 N.J. 539 (1966), the Supreme Court considered the State purchasing statute and clearly highlighted the legislative policy inherent in N.J.S.A. 52:34-12(d) to grant to the Director of the Division of Purchase … Nothing in the specifications is pointed to as a tailoring technique whereby IBM alone could qualify as a bidder.

Gonzalez-Posse v. Ricciardulli

410 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2009

At around this same time, defendant was entering the seventh year of his H-1B visa, having qualified for an extension on January 31, 2005 when DirecTV filed a Labor Certification on his behalf. … Once changed circumstances have been established, as here, Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 151 , 416 A. 2d 45 ; Martindell v.

State v. Brooks

309 N.J. Super. 43 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1998

And then there was testimony during the trial itself, particularly from someone who is qualified as an expert, Mr. … The case is clearly distinguishable.

Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Housing Inspection v. Frank Bright

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2025

DCA is further authorized to establish, through regulations, a schedule for required inspections. … The privilege "is not a blanket immunity" that allows an individual to refuse to answer all questions posed to them. Id. at 499-500.

In Re Adoption of Child by It and Kt

162 N.J. Super. 587 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 1978

They qualify financially and culturally, *604 but they do not qualify legally. Their counsel had a duty to warn them from the beginning that their hold on the child was precarious. … Only in the implementation of the clearly stated policy of the Legislature does there lie a real opportunity of inhibiting and suppressing the opprobrious black market in children.

Philip Vitale v. Schering-Plough Corporation

447 N.J. Super. 98 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 22, 2016

"Even if unambiguous, it is well-established that exculpatory contracts will not be enforced where they are contrary to public policy." Id. at 594. … Although a defendant must produce some evidence, "the quantum of evidence required to qualify for an apportionment charge is low." Boryszewski, supra, 380 N.J.

A.O. VS. CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS IN CHILDREN RELIEF FUND COMMISSION (CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS IN CHILDREN RELIEF FUND COMMISSION) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 2021

Reimbursements for medical expenses are "subject to the rules and regulations established by the [C]ommission . . . ." N.J.S.A. 26:2-156. … The law clearly provides that the Commission determines whether to reimburse medical expenses on a yearly basis and may deny otherwise qualified expenses for budgetary purposes.

State v. Martinez

229 N.J. Super. 593 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1989

THE COURT'S INADEQUATE AND MISLEADING INSTRUCTION ON DEFENDANT'S IMMUNITY FROM THE DUTY TO RETREAT CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR. II. … Rivera," defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that possession of a weapon for a precautionary purpose is not a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d, and that a finding of an unlawful use of the weapon would not establish

In the Matter of the Expungement Application of K.M.G.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2023

citation omitted), it relied on "the presumption that a word or phrase is used in the same sense throughout [a] statute," finding that "since the phrase 'most recent conviction' in the third sentence of subsection (b) is clearly … to mean "New Jersey conviction," while it is not so qualified in the waiting period provision.

Mannillo v. Gorski

100 N.J. Super. 140 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1968

But most of them make no explanation of the qualifying terms and leave the impression that the occupant must not merely be in possession adversely to the owner but must by word or act proclaim during all the period of the … Defendant has produced evidence that clearly and convincingly proves (and the Court so finds) that she has been in possession of the 15 inch strip upon which the steps and platform and the concrete walk from the steps to

Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Construction Co.

18 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1952

The case was submitted to the jury upon instructions that a finding of negligence might be rested upon (1) the violation of an alleged duty under "An Act establishing a safety code for workers in the construction industry … The cases are clearly distinguishable.

R.E. v. Horizon Nj Health

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2025

The Assistant Commissioner disagreed with the ALJ's findings and determined that "there is insufficient evidence to establish that [R.E.] satisfies the clinical eligibility criteria necessary to qualify for [ADHS] pursuant … "[I]f our review of the record shows that the agency's finding is clearly mistaken, the decision is not entitled to judicial deference." A.M. v. Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 466 N.J. Super. 557, 565 (App.

State v. Rhoda

206 N.J. Super. 584 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1986

The actual losses of the eight victims were established as ranging from $1,045 to $16,701. … The judge clearly set forth in the record his reasons for setting restitution.

Groh v. Groh

439 N.J. Super. 186 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2014

While the state did not at that time legalize same-sex marriages, the Act formally established the right *189 of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, a legislatively created domestic status, which provided certain … The amendment was clearly intended and designed to permit people to end their marriages in a calm and dignified manner without having to engage in hurtful and unproductive mudslinging over who was at fault for the failure

Spialter v. Testa

162 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1978

established legal rights of tenants or responsibilities of landlords as established by the law of this State at the time the lease is signed. … Defendants qualify. But for the damage clause which the landlord relied upon, the tenants would have had the refund by March 10, 1977.

State v. Price

195 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1984

Following arraignment, the prosecutor determined the case qualified as a capital offense and served defendant with notice of the particular aggravating factor [ N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(b)] the State intends to rely upon. … Conduct constituting the offense of murder is clearly defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1), (2) and (3).

Hollister v. Fiedler

22 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 1952

of the Fiedler stock was nil"; (6) that "The Court erred in concluding that plaintiff was an employee of Fiedler & Hollister, Inc. within the contemplation of the terms of the option agreement and that plaintiff was thus qualified … But, we think that a reading of this provision clearly dispells the thought that it was agreed that one party might, on disassociation with the business, take with him or acquire more than his proportionate share of the assets

NINA PAGAN VS. NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY (L-1541-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2017

He also concluded NHA was immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:5-4 (immunizing public entities and employees "for failure to provide police protection service or . . . … In rejecting any argument that the public entity could be liable for a "dangerous condition" on its property, N.J.S.A. 59:4- 1(a), Judge Michels clearly stated: There cannot be the slightest doubt that the

Trenkamp v. Township of Burlington

170 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1979

The preponderance of the existing case law clearly favors some sort of exception in these situations. … The covenant expressly allows more than one structure to be located on the property as long as each qualifies as a customary appurtenant building for one family use.