Case law

Houdaille Constr. Materials, Inc. v. Amer. Tel. & Tel. Co.

166 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 1979

Turner reviewed the qualifications of several proposed bidders, including Barnaby, and concluded, on the basis of prior experience with Barnaby, a review of Dun and Bradstreet reports and other information, that Barnaby was qualified … I therefore find that plaintiff has failed under any of its arguments to establish rights maintainable against these defendants.

State of New Jersey v. Jeremy Arrington

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 2024

Arrington, could be qualified to make such an assessment of his own mental capacity . . . … In the end, I concur in the outcome, concluding that the trial court's ruling was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result.

State v. Pratt

226 N.J. Super. 307 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1988

In sum, we decline defendant's invitation to modify the well-established standard for determining reasonable provocation. … We have no roving commission to broaden the law and deviate from the clearly expressed legislative intent.

Hartman v. City of Brigantine

42 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 1956

Div. 1954), reversed on another point in 16 N.J. 265 (1954), so as to establish participation by the county in the activity, plaintiff has no problem, as the dumping of the mounds was by direction of an agent, the assistant … The alleged contributory negligence cannot be clearly seen conclusively as a fact or by necessary and exclusive inferences from the plaintiff's proofs. Danskin v. Pennsylvania R.R.

Stoney v. Maple Shade Tp.

426 N.J. Super. 297 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 2012

After all, whether the re-pavement would qualify as a post-1992 "alteration" is a significant consideration in the determination of irreparable harm. [11] Equally absent from the court's analysis is any mention of the public … Both state and federal fee-shifting statutes applicable here provide for counsel fees to the prevailing party, N.J.S.A. 10:5-27.1; 42 U.S.C.A. § 12205 , and clearly plaintiff is a prevailing party.

State v. Pillar

359 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 2003

In our view, the facts fail to establish that Pillar's statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. … As noted, Macon rather clearly adopted the contribution analysis of Chapman. See also Fahy v.

Leidy v. County of Ocean

398 N.J. Super. 449 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2008

As defendant argued at its motion for reconsideration: the police report clearly indicates and provides at least a diligent party would investigate and look into and file the motions. … Inasmuch as this excuse does not suffice to establish "extraordinary circumstances," neither does it render reasonable the delay in filing plaintiff's motion to file a late claim.

State v. Williams

403 N.J. Super. 39 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 2008

Clearly there is no room for racial bias in any law enforcement investigation. … Its judgment is based on mere speculation, in violation of the standards we have established. [ Id. at 6 , 116 S.Ct. at 10 , 133 L.Ed. 2d at 7 .]

Roper v. Blumenfeld

309 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1998

But the article was not used to establish a standard of care. It was used to impeach Dr. … The declaration does not necessarily need to be made to a physician to qualify. Ibid, (citing De Palma v. Economy Auto Supply Co., 3 N.J.

County of Camden v. Waldman

292 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1996

In order to be termed DSH payments and to qualify for FFP funds, this extra money must be given to a facility which qualifies, under one of the federal law alternatives, as a disproportionate share hospital. … A hospital can qualify as a DSH if it meets the requirements of U.S.C.A. § 1396r-4(b) and (d) or (e).

State v. Villanueva

373 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 2004

The well-established rule is that if a charge on the lesser-included is requested, it must be given if rationally based on the evidence, and if not requested, must nevertheless be given if clearly indicated by the evidence … Beyond that, the judge has an independent obligation to instruct on clearly indicated lesser-included offenses even if the defendant objects. State v.

Coastal Oil Co. v. Eastern Tankers Seaways Corp.

29 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 18, 1954

In effect, the second count charges that the warranties contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contract were fraudulent in that defendant knew at the time it entered into the contract that it would not qualify for the Commission's … It is well established as a principle of fundamental justice that if a promisor prevents or hinders the occurrence or fulfillment of a condition in a contract, and the condition would have occurred or would have been fulfilled

State of New Jersey v. Calvin Presley

436 N.J. Super. 440 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 2014

Super. at 550-55.7 We did not consider whether the circumstances giving rise to an objectively reasonable belief that the judge could not qualify as a "neutral and detached magistrate" based on his relationship with one … The nature and extent of how the proceedings have been tainted by the judge's participation clearly inform the nature and extent of the remedy required.

Rutgers University Student Assembly (Rusa) vs.

446 N.J. Super. 221 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 2016

For those reasons, a statute "will not be declared void unless it is clearly repugnant to the Constitution." Trautmann ex rel. Trautmann v. … If the individual was found qualified to vote, the provisional ballot would be counted.

Bank of New York v. Raftogianis

417 N.J. Super. 467 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2010

The debt in question was clearly payable to American Home Acceptance. … That is clearly contemplated by the Rules of Court.

McGovern v. Rutgers

418 N.J. Super. 458 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 18, 2011

We thus affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the establishing of an appropriate remedy. I. … A type I district is defined in N.J.S.A. 18A:9-2 as a "local school district... established in a city...."

State v. Lisa

391 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 2007

The duty, however, only requires the host to give such assistance as the host reasonably can and to take reasonable action to turn the injured person over to those qualified to care for the guest. . . . . … 2d 486 (citing §§ 321 to 324A of Restatement); see Endre, supra, 300 N.J.Super. at 143 , 692 A. 2d 97 (citing § 314A of Restatement); Poole, supra, 259 N.J.Super. at 84 , 611 A. 2d 169 (Good Samaritan Act does not confer immunity

State v. Elkwisni

384 N.J. Super. 351 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 2006

Do you normally qualify the reason that you're asking a suspect a question? A. Can you repeat that? Q. Do you normally qualify, indicate the reasoning for asking a suspect a particular question in your reports? … Clearly, there's nothing in his statement to support a claim that he did read him his Miranda rights. The Miranda form itself is not executed until 11:30 p.m. that evening.

Brainbuilders, LLC v. Optum, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 2024

The judge found the statements in the July and August 2017 letters sent by the Optum entities were subject to qualified immunity. … We first consider whether the statements in the July and August 2017 letters were either true or constituted opinions to establish a defense to BrainBuilders' defamation claim.

Reliance Ins. Co. v. Armstrong

292 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1996

They are each well-reasoned; one is not clearly more cogent than the other. [ Id. at 419 , 662 A. 2d 562 .] … Some courts have gone even farther, clearly expressing that the State's interest in groundwater is a property right. Spangler Const. v.