Case law

State of New Jersey v. Rodger L. Purvis

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 2025

Even if we accept the certification of [the passenger's] counsel, it does not establish that [the passenger] would have qualified for a gun-carry permit excluding the justifiable need requirement … For example, in Wade, we noted that the defendant's certification "[did] not establish that [the passenger] would have qualified for a gun-carry permit excluding the justifiable need requirement." Id. at 506.

Jolley v. Marquess

393 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 2007

Neither AIIC nor Gorna was included in the list of clients that Marquess took with him when he established his new firm on May 1, 2000. … When the complaint and the language of the policy correspond, the insurer clearly must defend the suit. SL Indus. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 128 N.J. 188, 197 , 607 A. 2d 1266 (1992).

Salvatore Lopresti and Margaret Lopresti v. Wells Fargo bank,n.A.

435 N.J. Super. 311 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2014

Although sufficient, in our view, to confer standing upon them to bring this action, it does not qualify them for the protection against prepayment fees embodied in our Prepayment Law. … 19 A-1356-12T3  Finally, having found no violation by defendant of the Prepayment Law, and therefore no unlawful conduct or unconscionable commercial practice, plaintiffs simply have not established

Bi-County Dev. of Clinton, Inc. v. Borough of High Bridge

341 N.J. Super. 229 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2001

The trial court concluded that because Bi-County is contributing to Clinton's affordable housing fund in lieu of constructing housing that would be affordable to lower income families, "it qualifies as an inclusionary development … Clearly, a development of single family houses sold at market rates is not a development "in which a substantial percentage of the housing units are provided for" or "contain[ ]" low and moderate income units.

Interchange State Bank v. Rinaldi

303 N.J. Super. 239 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1997

The collateral provision in plaintiffs guaranty clearly qualifies as “unequivocal” measured by the Langeveld standard. … However, defendants’ allegation that plaintiff violated the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act are legally insufficient to establish the necessary elements of the claimed cause of action.

E.B. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services

431 N.J. Super. 183 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2013

with the policy and procedures so established. … generally and uniformly to all similarly situated persons; (3) is designed to operate only on future cases, that is, prospectively; (4) prescribes a legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly

Borough of Caldwell v. Cozzarelli Cirminiello Architects, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 2025

Stated another way, CCA contends that since Caldwell adhered to, for years, its own clearly defined process to approve CCA's invoices, and because those approvals were ratified by the duly elected Caldwell governing body … We consider the threshold question from Macedo: Do architects qualify as a learned profession requiring extensive knowledge?

Life Ins. Co. of No. America v. De Chiaro

68 N.J. Super. 93 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 1961

De Chiaro could not have qualified for the standard policy he applied for because his weight and blood pressure exceeded the norms then established by the plaintiff for men of his age and build. … One cannot quarrel with this decision, since the application was clearly rejected by the company in the lifetime of the applicant who never accepted a substitute policy.

Handleman v. Cox

74 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1962

Evaluating the evidence in the posture in which it stood at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Handleman did not qualify as an invitee at the moment of his fall. … Moreover, the pretrial *336 order clearly reflects this basic dispute.

Fried v. Aftec, Inc.

246 N.J. Super. 245 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1991

While the parties each claim that its version of the profitability figures was correct, that issue was clearly before the jury. … The jury responded affirmatively to the first interrogatory question: "Did the plaintiff comply with the subject contract so as to qualify for a cash bonus?"

State v. Davis

244 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 1990

In support of this recommendation, the Coordinator stated: I feel he is a well motivated and qualified candidate for admittance into the Cape May County Pre-Trial Intervention program. Mr. … R. 3:28, Guideline 6, establishes procedures for PTI applications and appeals. See also N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(f).

CHERI LANE VS. CITY OF CAMDEN (L-3958-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2019

A-0556-17T1 6  The district court found the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from "liability for civil damages," see also Pearson v. … immunity related to the alleged use of force resulting in Albert's death.

Cooley's, Etc., Found. v. Legalized Games, Etc.

78 N.J. Super. 128 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 1963

The Foundation had duly qualified as a charitable organization for a license to operate weekly bingo games at Passaic Auditorium, Passaic, N.J., for the period October 25, 1960 through February 28, 1961. … It was clearly established that these latter figures, unless analyzed, were not relevant to contradict the averages established by Valentine.

Apfel v. Budd Larner Gross Rosenbaum Greenberg & Sade

324 N.J. Super. 133 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1999

Those principles, however, as subsequently limited and explained in Weiss , clearly have no application here. … However, in Weiss , the Court qualified and severely limited that proposition.

In Re Stormwater Management Rules

384 N.J. Super. 451 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 2006

N.J.S.A. 13:13A-1 to -15; the Pinelands Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 13:18A-1 to -29; and the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 13:20-1 to -35, have expressly granted DEP authority to plan land development, or clearly … designated by the department pursuant to the "Water Pollution Control Act," . . . or any other law, or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, for major Highlands development or for other development that does not qualify

In re the Commitment of J.P.

339 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2001

Following testimony by two expert witnesses for the State and one expert for J.P., the judge found that J.P. qualified as a violent sexual predator. … VII J.P. next argues that the State did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is likely to commit acts of sexual violence in the foreseeable future.

Coalition for Quality Health Care v. DEPT. OF BANKING & INS.

348 N.J. Super. 272 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 2002

Thus, AICRA clearly authorizes the imposition of copayments. … For example, a DRP must be either: an attorney with at least ten years' experience handling personal injury or workers' compensation cases, a former judge, or an individual qualified by education and with at least ten years

County of Monmouth v. Communications Workers of America

300 N.J. Super. 272 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 1997

Historical Development Case law interpreting the relevant statutes before the recent amendment to N.J.S.A 34:13A-5.3 states clearly that PERC should not have based its decisions on the distinction between police and non-police … The Protection Act provided enhanced sentences for murderers convicted of killing law enforcement officers but who escaped the death penalty; it amended the New Jersey Tort Claims Act by extending immunities for law *292

State v. Poinsett

206 N.J. Super. 307 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1984

[Citations omitted] In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial … If it were, the Director's consent would not be a requirement established by Rule and statute. The Prosecutor must acknowledge and consider the Director's consent and set forth the reasons that make it unacceptable.

NJ BLDRS. ASS'N v. Dept. of Environmental Protec.

169 N.J. Super. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1979

In other words, the finding of the Commissioner of DEP of a need of establishment of standards for water quality and septic systems control is clearly supported by ample credible evidence in the record. … The testimony of John Murphy of the United States Geological Survey, a qualified expert with relation to the ground water of the Central Pine Barrens, demonstrated the adequacy of DEP's data for ground water quality.