Case law

Scavone v. Scavone

230 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1988

Passive, Immune Asset (Pre-marital, Gift, Inheritance) in One Name. … The immunity of assets acquired in such a manner is stated very clearly in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and its accompanying statements.

Berkery v. Kinney

397 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2007

It's so tough that clearly and convincingly is the standard [rather than] a preponderance of the evidence." In New York Times v. … Considering plaintiff's admissions with respect to his prior criminal convictions and the public records regarding his prior criminal involvement, plaintiff clearly qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure who must prove

National State Bank v. Gonzalez

266 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1993

Section 702 is clearly not, however, a waiver of immunity in state court. See Kozera v. Spirito, 723 F. 2d 1003 , 1011 n. 7 (1st Cir.1983); Aminoil U.S.A., Inc. v. … The legislative history of Section 702 clearly demonstrates Congress' intent that Section 702 not operate as a waiver of immunity in state court. See H.R.Rep.

Finderne Management Co. v. Barrett

355 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2002

Comm'r. of Internal Revenue, 108 T.C. 524 , 1997 WL 328581 (1997), concluded that plans similar to the EPIC Plan did not qualify for favorable *860 tax treatment. … Financial's third-party complaint and Barrett's claim for contribution and indemnification on the grounds that Rossi is immune from suit based on the statutory accountant's immunity established in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25.

Kuzmiak v. Brookchester

33 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1955

Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion below, but then seemed to qualify the effect of this by stating: "This is a case of nonfeasance, not as plaintiff … provisions should not be construed to exempt a party from its own negligence or violation of a positive duty imposed by law. * * * we consider it to be a sound principle of law that, even if the language of the instant lease clearly

Starr v. Reinfeld

267 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1993

The judge concluded that “a denial of quasi-judicial immunity would certainly deter qualified individuals from agreeing to serve in any quasi-judicial appointments of the court” and “deny judges these valuable resources.” … The Supreme Court, through Justice Stevens, declared that: “The proponent of a claim to absolute immunity bears the burden of establishing the justification for such immunity.”

Costa v. Josey

160 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1978

Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person. [ N.J.S.A. … The differences between discretionary activities and ministerial activities may not always be clearly apparent. See Czyzewski v. Schwartz, 110 N.J. Super. 255, 260 (App. Div. 1970).

Bonitsis v. NJ INSTITUTE OF TECH.

363 N.J. Super. 505 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2003

To reverse the trial court's evidentiary ruling, we must find that the trial judge's decision was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2. … Collini's letters was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to a new trial on that claim.

Sablic v. Croatia Line

315 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 1998

However, we affirm the motion court's ruling that the Federal Sovereign Immunity Act immunizes Croatia Line from having to respond to Sablic's claims in our courts. … The Federal Sovereign Immunity Act does not define "ownership interest."

Kirby v. Columbian Institute

101 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1968

In the present case the Court is of the opinion that operating a public bar and bowling alley for profit is clearly a commercial activity bearing no substantial and direct relation to the mental and moral improvement of men … Compensation for torts committed by these commercial *212 establishments must be satisfied from the profits of the venture before any individual owner or shareholder receives his share of the net proceeds.

PAUL KAMIENSKI VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENTOF TREASURY(L-2106-10, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

451 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 16, 2017

("Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent."). … But, more persuasive is the Legislature's own understanding of the damages provision, as clearly set forth in the legislative history for the 2013 amendments.

Williams v. Kenney

379 N.J. Super. 118 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2005

With respect to the transcript of the telephone conversation, the judge noted plaintiff contended only that defendants failed to establish the object they sought to achieve had any logical relation to the Tarver litigation … Rather, the subject of the letter was clearly Tarver's lawsuit against the State.

Marshall v. Klebanov

378 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 2005

It has been established that a physician must "safeguard the patient from a reasonably foreseeable self-inflicted injury." Cowan v. … As the emphasized language clearly recognizes, plaintiff's theory of liability is predicated upon defendant's inactions in the face of decedent's "high risk of suicide."

C.H. v. Department of Children and Families

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 2026

Qualified immunity is not provided to public employees under certain circumstances as set forth at N.J.S.A. 59:3-14(a), providing public employees are subject to full liability "if it is established that [their] conduct … The record clearly indicates that Dr.

Mayer v. FAIRLAWN JEWISH CENTER & RANDALL CONSTR. CO.

71 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 1961

However, we disagree with Center's claim that the statute immunizes defendant from plaintiff's suit. … a breach of contract by Commercial might form the basis of liability and emphasized *324 that "indemnity for liability incurred by the indemnitee due to his own fault and damages for breach of contractual duties must be clearly

State v. Maiorana

240 N.J. Super. 352 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1990

The burden of proof is upon the State to establish clearly and convincingly that the evidence it proposed to present at trial was developed or obtained from sources or by a means entirely independent of and unrelated to the … Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the trial judge for a Kastigar hearing, at which the burden of proof will be upon the State to establish clearly and convincingly that the evidence adduced at trial against this defendant

Robinson v. Zorn

430 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 2013

The existence of a vibrant, competitive private passenger automobile insurance market in New Jersey is clearly in the best interests of the [s]tate; e. … The special automobile insurance policy shall be offered only to individuals who qualify for and are actively covered by designated government subsidized programs in the [s]tate.

Buono v. Scalia

358 N.J. Super. 210 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 2003

In Small , the Court “clearly reaffirmed [its] general disapproval of the parental immunity doctrine” but allowed that parental immunity “might still remain operative in ‘special areas in the parent-child relationship, such … clearly in the best position to know the limitations and capabilities of his or her own children.”

Strauss v. State

131 N.J. Super. 571 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1974

A writ of habeas corpus was granted by United States District Court Judge Shaw on November 16, 1971 on the grounds that informer Corrolla, an active participant in establishing an atmosphere of confidence both prior to and … Clearly, the cause of action in Maule did not involve the exception to N.J.S.A. 52:4A-1.

Mendoza v. Monmouth Recycling Corp.

288 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1996

The facts surrounding his entry were never really established. Petitioner testified through an interpreter, and his illegal status was apparently regarded by the judge as proved by petitioner's own testimony. … cannot qualify for workers' compensation benefits.