Case law

Sarner v. Sarner

62 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1960

The other bases mentioned above for Sarner's claim of immunity from accountability on his book obligations to the corporations are equally improperly asserted here. … The values attributable to the alleged oral contracts with Business Center and Section 1 depend upon whether they are established in law and fact on the remand.

Natalia Kronfeld v. Elliott Malone

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2025

Plaintiff argued "[her] primary counsel's health issues, compounded by COVID[-19,] and the inherent complexity of this case qualify as exceptional circumstances to permit [an] extension of discovery." … A-2044-23 15  circumstances presented were clearly beyond the control of the attorney and litigant seeking the extension of time.

Local Bd. of Health of Berkeley Tp. v. Johnson

73 N.J. Super. 384 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1962

Borough of Stratford, 15 N.J. 295 (1954), is clearly distinguishable. … The action of the board, in adopting a plumbing code, was lawful in its intended purpose to delimit the plumbing business in the municipality to experienced and competent persons qualified to perform plumbing work and to

Atlantic City Parking Auth. v. ATLANTIC CTY.

180 N.J. Super. 282 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1981

Plaintiff herein has the burden of clearly establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the unconstitutionality of the County Transportation Authorities Act. Id. at 597 . … Such law shall become operative only if it is adopted by ordinance of the governing body of the municipality or county or by vote of the legally qualified voters thereof.

In the Matter of Leave to File a Late Notice of Claim Pursuant to the New Jersey Tort Claims Act on Behalf of Nakeedah S. Gregg, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2025

However, the trial court's discretion should be exercised with "the larger context of the clear legislative intent that the waiver of sovereign immunity be limited." D.D., 213 N.J. at 148. … Clearly, on the date of the incident, plaintiffs were aware of their injuries and that those injuries were a result of the accident caused by the other driver.

President v. Jenkins

357 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 2003

There is no indication of a timely oral or written explanation of the effect of the words "retroactive date," which qualify the Zurich policy. On January 8, 1998, both O'Brien and Dr. … Surely, there is a duty to communicate the effect of words that qualify the ordinary provisions of a claims made policy, such as the words "retroactive date."

Division of Youth and Fam. Serv. v. Vj

386 N.J. Super. 71 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 2004

Lucarello, 135 N.J.Super. 347, 353 , 343 A. 2d 465 (App.Div.), aff'd o.b. 69 N.J. 31 , 350 A. 2d 226 (1975)), stated that the "Defendant, of course, is entitled to retain qualified counsel of his own choice. … R. 5:12-3 sets out the required discovery, and N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10(a) establishes the confidentiality of the records.

State v. Nataluk

316 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1998

As noted, the jury convicted defendant of the four charges against him and thus, quite clearly, it rejected the insanity claim. … With respect to the charge of possessing a weapon for an unlawful purpose, establishing guilt requires proof of that unlawful purpose. [4] State v. Dixon, 114 N.J. 111, 113 , 553 A. 2d 1 (1989); State v.

Judith A. Dinapoli v. Board of Education of the Township Of verona, Essex County

434 N.J. Super. 233 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2014

The objective of such tenure statutes is to protect competent and qualified employees, after a probationary period from being removed for "unfounded, flimsy, or political reasons." Zimmerman v. … The employee shoulders the burden of establishing entitlement to tenure protection, which ordinarily must be clearly proven. Id. at 493.

In re the Rehabilitation of Mutual Benefit Life Insurance

258 N.J. Super. 356 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1992

The purposes of the Uniform Act and of our own statute clearly require that broad and expansive powers be granted the Commissioner and the trial court. Indeed, the plain language of the Act so provides. … We have considered the remainder of appellants’ arguments and find them to be clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). Affirmed.

Matter of Adoption of Child by JMG

267 N.J. Super. 622 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 1993

The plaintiff is clearly both physically and financially capable of supporting and nurturing the child. … J.M.G. is a qualified adoptive parent.

Gobac v. Davis

62 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1960

Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund, 27 N.J. 266 (1956) the court stated, at page 270: "It is well settled that the doctrine of sovereign immunity will not bar a prerogative writ proceeding commenced to compel the exercise … His duties are clearly "governmental," and "public" in character.

Blau v. Friedman

46 N.J. Super. 573 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 1957

In rationalizing the problem, let us begin at the beginning with the realization that in the absence of some qualifying or oppugnant expression in the contract of employment, a broker who is duty engaged earns his commission … Commonly, however, such is not the meaning of the parties, and an agreement should not be so construed unless such a result is clearly intended.” *580 .

State v. Perez

349 N.J. Super. 145 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2002

This situation is clearly distinct from that in State v. … Neither of defendant's two encounters with D.D., even when viewed together, qualifies.

FELICIA PUGLIESE VS. STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, ESSEX COUNTY (C-000215-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 28, 2018

The evidentiary record established that no 8 A-2196-16T1  remedial help was provided to [Pugliese] after May 9, 2012 … Rather, the formulation requires that the arbitrator[] must have clearly intended to decide according to law, must have clearly mistaken the legal rule, and that mistake must

State v. Stevens

222 N.J. Super. 602 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1988

In comments to Rule 55 the Review Commission states, "It is debatable whether another crime's merely being part of the res gestae should qualify it for admission to evidence." Evid.R. 55, comment 10 (Anno. 1987). … NOTES [1] The indictment charges January 1, 1983 but the testimony established that it occurred in January, 1982.

Walker v. Choudhary

425 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 2012

As a preliminary matter, we note that it is well-established that "[t]ort liability of a principal and agent . . . is both joint and several." Moss v. Jones, 93 N.J.Super. 179, 184 , 225 A. 2d 369 (App. … Nowhere in the rule, its comments, or in case law interpreting the rule does a proposition stand for the notion that an employer is immune from liability if a plaintiff's claim against an employee is barred by the statute

Sergio Tandoc v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2026

. ; and (3) whether[,] in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably have been made on a showing of … The Board determined Tandoc did not qualify for accidental disability benefits pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7.

State v. Huff

292 N.J. Super. 185 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1996

POINT II THE PROSECUTOR'S EXCLUSION OF THE ONLY BLACK JUROR THAT WAS QUALIFIED BY THE COURT FOR SERVICE ON MR. … In any event, a reasonable non-discriminatory basis for the challenge was established. See Gilmore, supra, 103 N.J. at 538-39 , 511 A. 2d 1150 .

In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of R.W.T.'s Application, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 2023

In practical effect, this provision establishes a procedural bar to the issuance of an FPIC or PPH, not a substantive one. … Stated another way, this provision does not impose substantive limitations on who is qualified to obtain a firearm.