Case law

Morris v. Krauszer's Food Stores, Inc.

300 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1997

The duty of the owner or possessor of land to protect business invitees from foreseeable harm is well established. … The poor lighting made the interior of the store too dark to be clearly visible.

Housing Authority of Newark v. Sagner

142 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1976

Its employees enjoy civil service status under guidelines established by the State. N.J.S.A. 55:14A-6.1. … In that case the National Housing Agency was held to be immune from the operation of a local zoning ordinance. That agency was clearly a federal one and not a state one. Leslie Miller, Inc. v.

Pisack v. B & C Towing, Inc.

455 N.J. Super. 225 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2018

A plaintiff bringing a claim under the TCCWNA must establish that he or she is an "aggrieved consumer," and the defendant violated a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility." … Charges not permitted by the Towing Act violate a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility." Finally, if the vehicle owner paid for unauthorized services, the owner has suffered *1103 an ascertainable loss.

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.”

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.

Snyder v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks

282 N.J. Super. 23 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 1995

Clearly, then, the Legislature was aware of the non-immunity holding of Jacobs . It had the option of overruling it entirely. It did not. … She clearly had the discretion to rule differently.

Kleinke v. City of Ocean City

163 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1978

sections and there are no exceptions in the statute which preclude such immunity. … The statute clearly applies to the physical condition of the premises itself, not to the super imposition of an artificially created hazard thereon.

Lucier v. Williams

366 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 2004

The foisting of a contract of this type in this setting on an inexperienced consumer clearly demonstrates a lack of fair dealing by the professional. … This excessively restricted damage allowance, which caps the inspector's exposure at $192.50, effectively immunizes him from the consequences of his own negligence.

Donato v. Moldow

374 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2005

I Moldow established the website, known as "Eye on Emerson," in late 1999. … This reasoning, with which we agree, supports our conclusion that Moldow qualifies as a user, as well as a provider, of an interactive computer service.

A.F. v. D.L.P.

339 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 2001

However, the Court clearly announced that “the standard we enunciate is applicable to all persons who have willingly, and with the approval of the [biological or adoptive] parent, undertaken the duties of a parent to a child … Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status.

Stringfield v. City of Hackensack

68 N.J. Super. 38 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 1961

the immunity, in part by means of "a more lenient attitude toward the proprietary classification." … Defendant urges N.J.S.A. 40:60-25.5 in support of its alleged immunity.

Dr. Terry Ramnanan v. Colin Keiffer, Esq.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2025

a clearly established right not to be prosecuted based on fabricated evidence." … In situations where absolute immunity may not apply, a governmental official may be entitled to qualified immunity "for discretionary acts that do 'not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Denis v. City of Newark

307 N.J. Super. 304 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1998

Plaintiffs arguments are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). II. … The Tort Claims Act did not change the well established body of law enunciated in McAndrew .

Bartolo v. Boardwalk Regency Hotel Casino, Inc.

185 N.J. Super. 534 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1982

However, defendants contend that N.J.S.A. 5:12-121(b) confers an immunity upon casinos comparable to that which N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(e) confers upon retail merchants. … To be sure, this section authorizes casino officials to detain patrons under certain circumstances and provides an accompanying *540 qualified immunity from civil liability.

Konitch v. Hartung

81 N.J. Super. 376 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1963

The trial court established a three-pronged test for the application of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8: it must appear that (1) plaintiff suffered a compensable injury; (2) plaintiff and *379 defendant were co-employees; and (3) defendant … The implied element in the statute under consideration is the one stated by the trial judge, and clearly set out in 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 72.20, p. 174 (1961) — that "the immunity attaches to the co-employee

Kolbeck v. Kramer

84 N.J. Super. 569 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1964

Generally the statutes require that pupils undergo: physical examination, N.J.S.A. 18:14-57; general vaccination, N.J.S.A. 18:14-52; diphtheria immunization, N.J.S.A. 18:14-64.2; polio immunization, N.J.S.A. 18:14-64.10, … The first amendment to the constitution, in declaring that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof, was intended to allow every one under the jurisdiction

Aronsohn & Springstead v. Weissman

230 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1989

Defendant argues that it is immunized from execution by the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and, more particularly, 26 U.S.C.A. § 401 (a)(13)(A), which conditions qualification *66 of a retirement trust for the favorable income … Thus, as Rayndon and Anderson, supra, at 530-531, conclude, a Keogh plan is clearly, in essence, a self-settled spendthrift trust — reachable by the settlor-beneficiary's creditors.

Senisch v. Carlino

423 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 2011

Plaintiffs claim does not establish clear and convincing evidence of falsity or reckless disregard for falsity of the letter, nor does it overcome the qualified privilege of defendants to provide a truthful reference letter … It also provides immunity from civil liability if a health care entity or other person complies with its provisions: e.

Watford v. Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board

113 N.J. Super. 495 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1971

J. 341 (1969), destroying sovereign immunity, shows the *506 judicial journey into enlightenment and justice in these matters. … It is but a short step from destroying the sovereign immunity of the State to the detriment of its citizens to judicial incursion into the Fund’s cacoon of claimed immunity.

Schrantz v. Luancing

218 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1986

Baer was found qualified to testify as a medical expert his testimony may not be struck. … Baer's testimony was immunized from a motion to strike so that whatever the testimony elicited on cross-examination it would only effect Dr.