Case law

New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. American Federation of State Employees

289 N.J. Super. 23 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1996

One need not do both to qualify. We recognize that in its final form, the 1974 amendments to Chapter 303 changed Governor Cahill’s proposed definition of managerial executive. … personnel policies and procedures and in enforcing the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement; and (4) establishing or participating in the establishment of performance standards for subordinate employees and taking

Cam v. Raw

237 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1990

Those principles are clearly applicable in this case. … interspousal immunity, it is clear plaintiffs have lifted the veil of secrecy here and place *543 squarely in issue all the facts surrounding their use or misuse of the alleged defective product. [ 178 N.J.

Estate of Nicolas v. Ocean Plaza Condominium Ass'n, Inc.

388 N.J. Super. 571 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2006

Nicolas qualifies as insane. Therefore, this court must decide whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to Ms. Nicolas' insanity, which would preclude summary judgment. … We stated: *1154 There is no claim for relief under HAL and no need to establish a violation of that act.

Gabriel Jimenez v. Board of Review

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2023

During his Tribunal hearing, he testified that given his mother's weakened immune system, he "preemptively" quit his job because there was no effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 at the time. … Based on the record before us, we are convinced Jimenez's situation does not qualify for PUA benefits under the CARES Act.

Mineur v. Commissioner

246 N.J. Super. 109 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1991

The amended version was enacted, and it reads: For the purpose of providing moneys necessary to establish the recovery fund in an amount sufficient to meet the requirements of the act, the commissioner shall establish reasonable … We have considered the remaining contentions raised and find that they are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(D). We affirm the adoption of N.J.A.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ADAM J. MCCARRAHER (15-11-0929, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2019

The basis for the argument is that the detective was never properly qualified. … Like the defendants in Lopez and J.S., this defendant was clearly placed on notice of the offense.

Heller-Loren v. Apuzzio

371 N.J. Super. 518 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2004

The Court stated that to refute a presumption of equitable distribution, "the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear `the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset … Thus, generally, property qualifies for equitable distribution "when it is `attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse' during marriage," Pascale, supra, 140 N.J. at 609 , 660 A. 2d at 498 (quoting Painter

Rudikoff v. BYRNE

101 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1968

The policy of our State to provide a source of recovery for injured plaintiffs is clearly established under the provisions of our Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund. … As to the third element, clearly it is not plaintiff's fault that defendant has escaped service.

MIRIAM L. CHICAS VS. TOWN OF KEARNY JOSE A. MARTINEZ VS. TOWN OF KEARNY (L-2516-15 AND L-4785-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2019

The burden of proof rests on the public entity to establish immunity. Caicedo, 439 N.J. Super. at 623 (quoting Kain, 436 N.J. Super. at 473). … "An error is harmful only where that error is 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-2).

State v. Hogan

336 N.J. Super. 319 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 2001

The rule should be that it is only when the facts known to the prosecutor clearly indicate or clearly establish the appropriateness of an instruction that the duty of the prosecution arises. Ibid.; see also State v. … However, it cannot fairly be said that this justification was clearly indicated or clearly established by the evidence.

Chelsea-Wheeler Coal Co. v. Marvin

131 N.J. Eq. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1942

Marvin qualified as executrix under the will of her father; that at the time of his death he was indebted to complainant, as well as to others; that Mrs. … From what has been said, it clearly appears that we are not dealing with a situation wherein a trust has been created.

Torres v. Schripps, Inc.

342 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2001

Clearly, Chait did not consider goodwill in his valuation of the company as of September 1997. … Clearly, plaintiff's failure to present expert testimony as to valuation enhanced the problem.

In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of P.J.M.'s Application for a Permit to Carry a Handgun, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2026

Constitutional issues are not immune from this principle. State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 383 (2012). … This evidence was clearly not hearsay.

State v. Two Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Three Dollars ($2,293) in United States Currency

436 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2014

The judge examined the documents, entered them into evidence, and concluded they showed “clearly that the drugs and the money were related to each other.” … The order is clearly interlocutory because it only denied Baker’s motion and did not enter final judgment in favor of the State.

Feldman v. Urban Commercial, Inc.

64 N.J. Super. 364 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 28, 1960

However, it is also well established in this State that "the legal estate of the mortgagee," before any default in the mortgage, does not entitle the mortgagee to possession of or any immediate estate in the land. … Construction on the subject matter has not yet been commenced, so that the developer-grantee has clearly violated the requirements of the contract and the deeds.

Glickman v. Anderson

269 N.J. Super. 59 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1993

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor … The Gendler Court stated, "`a trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and other nonresidents.'" Id. at 473 , 508 A. 2d 1127 (quoting McGee v.

Baylor v. Dept. of Human Services

235 N.J. Super. 22 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1989

The legislative history of that statute leaves little doubt that the child support disregard was established to encourage AFDC recipients to assist the state in establishing paternity and collecting child support. … The legislative history of that statute leaves little doubt that the child support disregard was established to encourage AFDC recipients to assist the state in *43 establishing paternity and collecting child support.

State v. CALLEIA

414 N.J. Super. 125 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 2010

The proponent of the evidence bears the burden to "clearly establish" each of these methods. Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170 , 699 A. 2d 596 . … This evidence is thus relevant in establishing that defendant cannot be ruled out as his wife's killer.

Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC

429 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 2013

Due to continued deteriorating conditions on the property, the Borough again directed the Board in 2010 to conduct an investigation to determine whether the property qualified as an area in need of redevelopment. … We are not convinced there are unique circumstances here warranting a deviation from established principles.

DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY v. Union Paving & Constr. Co.

168 N.J. Super. 19 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 1979

which such contractor or subcontractor has an interest until 3 years have elapsed from the date of listing as determined in section 14 of this act. [1] [L. 1963, c. 150, § 14] Facially these provisions, which lack such qualifying … As a matter of fact, he found that "petitioner's repeated disregard of the interests of its employees, as shown by its payment of less than the required wage on six public projects, clearly does not evidence a good faith