Case law

JAMES CARIFI VS. JAMES R. BARBERIO (L-3140-14, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 14, 2020

Because we reject the premise of this argument, we conclude it clearly lacks substantive merit. … Waiver may be implicit if "the circumstances clearly show that the party knew of the right and then abandoned it, ei ther by design or indifference," and that waiver must be done "clearly, unequivocally, and decisively

Costa v. Perez

272 N.J. Super. 108 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1994

Although the injuries alleged in Licari were plainly not within the statutory term "serious injury," that case is helpful in broadly defining the types of injuries that do qualify for compensation under the statute. … The interrogatory answers and deposition testimony of plaintiff Ortiz clearly establish that until September 1989, she was gainfully employed in two types of employment.

Estate of GE v. Div. of Med. Assist.

271 N.J. Super. 229 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1994

The court subsequently entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the direct pension payments to V.E. Although G.E.' … This would encourage prospective Medicaid applicants with incomes exceeding the eligibility limit to incur substantial debts in order to established eligibility, thereby circumventing the income limits established under the

Velsicol Chemical v. Environmental Prot. Dept.

182 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1982

No Earth Satellite representative or other qualified witness to support the admission of the report was thereafter produced, nor is appeal brought from the ruling excluding the report from evidence as inadmissible hearsay … remanding for retrial with the burden of proof resting upon the party challenging the existing physical scene, the Supreme Court commented: We note that on the record as it now stands, certain portions of the tract are clearly

Bitsko v. Main Pharmacy, Inc.

289 N.J. Super. 267 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1996

In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiff established a prima facie case of unequal pay for comparable work based on age and gender under the LAD. … Ultimately, it was for the jury to determine the credibility of Campbell's testimony regarding his reasons for the wage disparity, and it clearly resolved that issue in defendants' favor.

Med. Inter Ins. v. Health Care

278 N.J. Super. 513 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1995

Cohen qualified as an additional insured under this coverage. … The court also concluded that the jury verdict in the underlying medical malpractice action established that the basis of Dr. Cohen's liability was negligence in the performance of his duties as an administrator at St.

Turner v. Wong

363 N.J. Super. 186 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2003

And, in the context of *351 SLAPP [3] litigation, we recognized that the deprivation of a citizen's constitutional right to protest and communicate regarding public issues qualifies as a special grievance. … N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(f)(1). [4] And although the statute specifically mentions only written communications announcing the unavailability of the facility on prohibited grounds, oral communications to the same effect are in no way immune

State v. Fornino

223 N.J. Super. 531 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1988

The trial court instructed the jury that, in order to establish defendant's guilt of an attempt, the State was required to show that he ... did or omitted to do anything which under the circumstances as a reasonable person … Paul, supra, 614 F. 2d at 116 . [7] III Defendant's claim made in Point XII that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Schick

328 N.J. Super. 611 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 1999

provisions relating to associated subjects [citations omitted] requires the conclusion that any healthcare service authorized by the Act, in order to be eligible for recognition, must also comply with any other significant qualifying … The Fraud Act was clearly intended by the Legislature to apply to more than just the most egregious acts of insurance fraud.

Stop the Pay Hikes Committee v. Town Council of Irvington

166 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1979

A committee challenging the propriety of a portion of the salary ordinance was established, called “Stop the Pay Hikes Committee” (hereinafter the committee). … Certainly the specificity argument cannot ho sustained as to the mayor, council members and other elected officials, if any, since these persons are clearly ascertainable.

Esdaile v. Hartsfield

245 N.J. Super. 591 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1991

To qualify for PIP benefits, the claimant must meet the eligibility requirements of the original Fund statute. N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.1e. … To use any part of this money to compensate plaintiff's lawyer directly contradicts the Legislature's intentions in establishing the Fund.

AMERICAN FIRE v. NJ Div. of Tax.

375 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2005

Further, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, is inapplicable, because corporations are not held to be "persons" to which that clause applies. See Hemphill v. … In this context, our long-established jurisprudence requires us to defer to a legislature's judgment if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

Bustamante v. Borough of Paramus

413 N.J. Super. 276 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2010

Motts, 258 F. 3d 1117, 1119 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that Heck does not bar § 1983 suit because record did not clearly establish whether excessive force took place during, or after, the arrest); Martinez v. … In any event, we believe whether the immunity applies is dependent on the particular facts presented. We will not consider the question based upon the scant factual record that exists on appeal.

Black v. Black

436 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2013

The three accounts shall be established within thirty-five days. … The existence of Rutgers as a continuing option, however, clearly remains viable as an affordable university where C.B. has already established success as a freshman.

Eatough v. Bd. of Medical Examiners

191 N.J. Super. 166 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1983

s are either not qualified to practice medicine and surgery as is a physician who is required to use the M.D. designation, or are less competent than the latter. … Shelton College, 90 N.J. 470 (1982), Shelton College challenged certain New Jersey statutes and regulations as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Sm v. Aw

281 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1995

She acted friendly and appeared to enjoy the activities taking place in the retail establishment. … The maternal grandmother qualified as such an interested person and had standing to bring this action to have her granddaughter returned to her.

City of Union City, Etc. v. Christopher Williams

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2026

Here, the record establishes Williams has failed to provide any new evidence or arguments not previously considered and rejected. … As to the motion court's appointment of a receiver to the subject property, the record clearly shows that such was proper under N.J.S.A. 2A:42-117(a).

Madelyne Figueredo v. Township of Union

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 26, 2024

A-2749-22 5 pothole in the picture, plaintiff stated, "[n]o[,] but there are several cracks, I could clearly see them." … The Township clearly maintains control of the common area of the subject parking lot. Thus, NATC does not owe a duty to plaintiff here.

Anestis Karasaridis v. Voula Constantarakos

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2024

[Plaintiff's] Qualified Pension Benefit: The parties agree [plaintiff] has a Qualified Pension Benefit (AT&T Legacy Management Program) through his employer, AT&T. … "We will reverse only if we find the trial judge clearly abused his or her discretion." Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72 (App. Div. 2012).

In re Chandler

337 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 2001

The Public Guardian opposed Summit’s appointment on the basis that Summit was not as qualified as the Public Guardian in the provision of adult protective services. … A review of the legislative history clearly shows that the Legislature, in enacting the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults Act, N.J.S.A. 52.-27G-20 to -31, never intended to sanction the conduct now espoused by the Public