Case law

In Re Dis. Action Against Gonzalez

405 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 2009

The testing thus established that the tank had not leaked, but did not address the possible presence of other toxins in the sludge and excavated soil. … And, although our role in reviewing the actions of administrative agencies is limited, we are clearly empowered to determine whether an agency's decision offends the State or Federal Constitution. George Harms Const.

Strachan v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp.

209 N.J. Super. 300 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1986

Indeed, although Quinlan and Conroy clearly did not involve brain death, both recognized brain death as actual death. … Id. at 466. [2] Assembly Bill 3737, which was passed by the Assembly, would amend N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.10e to confer partial civil immunity upon committee members.

Schulman v. Male

70 N.J. Super. 234 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1961

On this basis, it concluded that the legal situation created by the facts and circumstances of the case clearly brought it within the exclusionary provisions of N.J.S.A. 34:15-95(c). Dr. Vincent J. … He felt that there was an orthopedic component, but he was not qualified to state the extent of such disability.

K.L. v. Evesham Township Board of Education

423 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 2011

Plaintiff clearly has a right to review school records pertaining to his own children. See N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(1)(A). … Furthermore, FERPA does not itself establish procedures for disclosure of school records.

Sea Harvest, Inc. v. Rig & Crane Equip. Corp.

181 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 1981

The court said (at 159): "Clearly, defendant was not a buyer in the ordinary course when he purchased the Thunderbird from Stamper, because it was not bought in the ordinary course from a person in the business of selling … That qualifying phrase will exclude all consumer goods (including such mobile goods as autos) and all inventory which is held for sale rather than lease.

Kimba Medical Supply v. Allstate Insurance

431 N.J. Super. 463 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 5, 2013

. *474 [W]ith the [c]ourt having reviewed the statutory parameters as well as the Forthright rules and finding that subsection (5) [of N.J.S.A. 2A28A-lS(c) ] clearly has been established, a remand is the appropriate relief … The [original DRP] clearly states that she didn’t address it. The [internal DRP panel] clearly is wrong when ... it says that the claimant had not raised the issue at the hearing.

Longobardi v. Chubb Ins. Co.

234 N.J. Super. 2 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 1989

Nor is there any applicable policy provision clearly directed at statements made after the loss. … Such assertions do not necessarily establish materiality.

Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark v. National Union Fire Ins. Co.

387 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 16, 2006

Clearly, if there was no coverage under the insuring clauses, there is no need to consider whether coverage is negated by the exclusions. See Morton Int'l v. General Acc. Ins. … Society Hill next contends that the subcontractors' work qualified as an "occurrence" within the meaning of the 1973 ISO's coverage clause.

North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst

441 N.J. Super. 70 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 2015

The governmental entity bears the burden to establish a basis for non-disclosure. N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6. … The "required by law" standard was already clearly defined by established case law. B.

Robert Diblasio v. Arlene Diblasio

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2024

The trial court found the language of the MSA was not ambiguous and clearly stated defendant's alimony award was intended to be permanent and non-modifiable. We disagree. … established in paragraph twelve.

Jackson v. Manasquan Sav. Bank

271 N.J. Super. 136 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 1993

The writing, clearly, is not an agreement of purchase and sale, is not an authentication of sale and is not sufficiently intelligible to constitute a memorandum or note of such an agreement or of a sale. … The only writings purporting to qualify are the advertisement and the proposed contract that was telecopied to the Bank by the Jacksons on June 11, 1993 [6] .

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT M.H. (18040006, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 2020

The judge considered the Internet registry statute to be clearly written, allowing for little interpretation. … The issue then becomes whether the error, not objected to during the hearing, was harmful—"clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.

Robin Coleman v. Karl Coleman

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 2026

Plaintiff clearly "earned substantially more than" defendant in the latter part of their marriage. … The marital lifestyle is important and is the measure used to establish alimony. See S.W., 462 N.J. Super. at 532-33.

Committee v. TWIN RIVERS HOMEOWNERS'ASSOCIATION

383 N.J. Super. 22 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 7, 2006

Count eight sought an improved alternate dispute resolution mechanism over that in established TRHA procedures, as well as mandatory injunctive relief "re-establishing the voting rights of plaintiff Bruce Fritzges and other … Thus any misunderstanding the judge may have had regarding public use of the room would qualify as harmless error.

Millennium Towers Urban Renewal Ltd. Liability Co. v. MUN. COUNCIL OF CITY OF JERSEY

343 N.J. Super. 367 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2001

A construction of a provision that `any proposed ordinance' may be submitted to the commission by a petition signed by a specified number of qualified has been construed to mean any legislation measure of permanent operation … To hold otherwise would clearly frustrate the legislative intent so evident throughout both statutes.

Pelullo v. STATE, COM'N OF INVEST

294 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1996

On May 2, 1985, Arthur Pelullo testified before the Commission under a grant of immunity in connection with the Commission's investigation on boxing. … Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 659 A. 2d 631, 634 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) is clearly distinguishable.

Nielsen v. Wal-Mart Store 2171

429 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2013

Not so long ago, our common law incorporated a well-established general rule absolving landowners of liability for injuries resulting from the condition of abutting sidewalks. Yanhko v. … If true, 6 this circumstance has relevance, but “our traditional jurisprudence clearly recognizes that neither ownership nor control is the sole determinant ... when obvious danger to an invitee is implicated.”

Kimberly Castro v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 18, 2025

He was qualified as an accident reconstruction expert. Based upon his review of the videos, photographs, deposition transcripts, and documentary evidence, Dr. … To establish a party acted negligently, a plaintiff must present evidence establishing "a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, injury to the plaintiff proximately

Hall v. Luby Corp.

232 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 1989

Clearly, Otis falls within a protected class intended to be benefited by the protection of the statute. … For instance, the East Orange rent-leveling ordinance establishes the position of rent leveling administrator in section 2:38-3. That section provides in relevant respects: ... Section 2:38-6.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER HARRIS STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONALD J. FALCONE STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOELL A. FOGG STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GARY R. NELSON STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MANUEL SANTIAGO STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. THOMAS EDGER STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVINE J. RICE STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FRANK R. MATLACK (19-12-0713, 18-08-0615, 19-08-0419, 19-10-00570, 20-01-0041, 17-10-0731, 19-10-0561, 19-12-0734, and 18-06-0455, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 18, 2021

Super. at 566 (referring to Meyer, 192 N.J. at 431–33; 6 We note that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) establishes a presumption of "imprisonment." Cf. State v. … The Public Defender contends that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14.2 establishes a "new type of legal presumption" that certain drug dependent offenders must be sentenced to special probation.