Case law

State v. Vasquez

265 N.J. Super. 528 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1993

We find defendant's assertion of plain error to be clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). VII. … Defendant qualified as a persistent offender. Id. at 340 , 555 A. 2d 707 . *563 The court held that the sentence was "neither manifestly excessive nor unduly punitive." Id. at 340 , 555 A. 2d 707 .

Secure Heritage, Inc. v. City of Cape May

361 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2003

"[A] heavy burden is placed on the party attacking the classification to show that it clearly lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate state objective." Ibid. … "adhering to the costs guideline established in [ Slocum ] would ensure that the City is charging a `reasonable' fee for beach tags.["] The Budget Review Team did not recommend that a separate utility fund be established.

Beemer v. Solar Oil Co. Sussex

96 N.J. Super. 50 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1967

.) *58 As noted, the trial judge, after quoting N.J.S.A. 56:6-22(b), proceeded directly to the conclusion that the effect of the leases was clearly such as "may be to substantially lessen competition." … Even though a single contract between single traders might fall within the initial broad proscription of section 3 of the Clayton Act, "it must also suffer the qualifying disability, tendency to work a substantial — not remote

Hemsey v. Board of Trustees

393 N.J. Super. 524 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2007

And that now there was a provision in there that specified that you could not take a job that could qualify as Police and Fire Pension for a period of six months after you retire. … “Equitable estoppel may be invoked against a municipality where interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate that course ...

Roth v. Rutherford Rent Board

239 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 1989

Courts must refrain from usurping the legislative body when its intent is clearly expressed. Tewksbury Tp. v. … This is clearly erroneous in light of the fact finding in Litt, supra, at 459, 483 A.2d 239 .

City of Hoboken v. Jersey City

347 N.J. Super. 279 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2001

The action taken by the JCRA required a formal amendment to the ordinance establishing the redevelopment area (JARA). … The expiration date of the term of office of each Class member was clearly set out in the records of the Municipal Clerk. The residency requirement for Class IV members is clearly set out in N.J.S.A. 40A:55D-23(a).

State v. VON CLEEF

102 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1968

Chernus, a qualified psychiatrist, who testified that many of the publications seized and introduced into evidence were patently offensive because they affronted contemporary community standards, appealed to the prurient … Preliminarily, it is necessary to establish a framework for dealing with the first two contentions.

State v. Burks

208 N.J. Super. 595 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1986

Unfortunately, however, he later qualified this statement by saying: "[w]hat I have just said applies only if you find that Mr. Neal did, in fact, fire his rifle in the direction of the defendants...." … This mistake in the charge was clearly capable of producing an unjust result and requires a new trial. R. 2:10-2. The trial court made a second error in the charge with regard to self-defense.

Vreeland v. Schoonmaker

16 N.J. Eq. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 1863

I think the wife is clearly entitled to the sum.of $2000, for which allowance is claimed by the administrator in his account. … The mere fact that a debt or legacy has not been actually paid, constitutes no objection to its allowance upon the settlement of the account, if its existence is clearly established* Accounts are thus frequently settled,

Constantino v. Borough of Berlin

348 N.J. Super. 327 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2002

Despite his claim, subsequent federal law clearly had retroactive effect, and preexisting and longstanding New Jersey law that specifically prohibited municipalities from hiring persons as police officers under age twenty-one … To prove an ADEA case, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that he is a membei of a protected class, he is qualified for the position sought, and that he was denied the position

Berardi v. Rutter

42 N.J. Super. 39 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 1956

It is elementary that a court will, if reasonably possible, put a construction upon a statute which will render it constitutional; and that only where it clearly violates the constitution, will it be struck down. … We cannot conceive that the Legislature intended that a person convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude was to be permitted to qualify as a detective, but not as a detective's employee.

State v. Cross

330 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 5, 2000

the offense, or (2) the law provides that the state of merit established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. … The conduct that the Legislature deemed to be a second degree offense is clearly deplorable and should be punished.

Abramowitz v. Kimmelman

203 N.J. Super. 118 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1985

Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 , 86 S.Ct. 1079 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 169 (1966), in which it invalidated Virginia's statute imposing a poll tax in state elections because it drew lines qualifying the right to vote … We think that Kramer and similar cases are clearly distinguishable from the case before us.

State v. Vogt

341 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2001

[T]he area can clearly be labeled as secluded. There is only one road that leads into Higbee Beach and the area is not easily accessible through neighboring property. … Notwithstanding its upholding of the validity of the ordinance, the court held that the ordinance could not be enforced on Higbee Beach, a site that "is state-owned and regulated and therefore immune from local control under

Ellis v. Caprice

96 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 1, 1967

If, viewed as a whole, the charge presents the law fairly and clearly, the fact that some expressions, standing alone, may be said to be erroneous affords no ground for reversal. Vadurro v. … Plaintiffs urge that, even so, in order to qualify as "independent" within the meaning of the statute, the stairways were required to be "so disposed with relation to the apartment as to afford the occupants alternate means

Richard Walker v. Costco Wholesale Warehouse

445 N.J. Super. 111 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 2016

R. 2:10-2 (recognizing the appellate court's authority to grant a new trial for errors "clearly capable" of producing an unjust result). … R. 4:46-2 (delineating the well-established summary judgment standard); Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995) (same); Frugis v.

Council Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City

200 N.J. Super. 431 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1984

The ordinance, by its terms prohibited the establishment of an adult book store at the location where plaintiff had planned to open such a store. … Since the invalidity of Ordinance No. 10 vindicated plaintiff's constitutional rights, the action clearly was not frivolous or unreasonable.

Rutgers University Student Assembly (Rusa) v. Middlesex County Board of Elections

438 N.J. Super. 93 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 19, 2014

If the individual was found qualified to vote, the provisional ballot would be counted as soon as the SVRS review process was completed. … Rather, the trial court must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions. [Curtis v.

State in Interest of JLA

262 N.J. Super. 78 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1993

s brief are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). *80 However, we agree with J.L.A. that consecutive dispositions are unauthorized by the Code of Juvenile Justice. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-20 to -91. … a period not to exceed 3 years upon such written conditions as the court deems will aid rehabilitation of the juvenile; (4) Transfer custody of the juvenile to any relative or other person determined by the court to be qualified

Harpell v. Pub. Service Coordinated Transport

35 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1955

Defendant may not, therefore, find immunization by mere showing of adherence to standards not here pertinent. Yet special conditions or problems may raise corresponding duties, even from common carriers. Rourke v. … Had objection here been made at the time of the charge the trial court would have had the opportunity to make its instruction in this respect comport with its references to the safety glass and to the screens, where it clearly