Case law

DCPP VS. S.T. AND M.B.T., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.A.R.T. AND C.V.V.T. (FG-07-0050-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 2019

Yeoman, who was qualified as an expert in psychology and bonding. … We disagree with Max's argument, and with the Law Guardian's position as to prong four, 3 and affirm substantially 3 Despite claiming that the Division failed to clearly and convincingly establish prong four, the Law

Lazorick v. Brown

195 N.J. Super. 444 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1984

The trial judge denied the motion without clearly articulating the basis for his ruling. He referred to the fact that the doctors had not been asked to speak to defense counsel but apparently were willing to do so. … Needle furnished two reports expressing the opinion that it was impossible to establish that plaintiff's condition was caused by the Amoxicillin.

State v. Seyler

323 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1999

Before ordering a defendant to be admitted into PTI over the prosecutor's objection, a trial court must find that defendant "clearly and convincingly establish[ed] that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into … Whether or not that was true, I do not interpret defendant's comments as attempting to justify his otherwise clearly acknowledged criminal actions.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LISA HICKS (18-09-2173, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 2021

Lastly, the motion judge did not analyze defendant’s application under the factors established in State v. Priester, 99 N.J. 123 (1985). … In this case, defendant clearly falls short of the high bar established for a judicial furlough.

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 .]

In re J.M.

416 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2010

She clearly wished to live. … The patient's alleged incapacitation must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Greenfield v. SSG Enterprises

213 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 1986

It ruled that the lessors must qualify as financial *7 sources of the project pursuant to N.J.S.A. 5:12-84(b), and questions were raised concerning the background of Daniel J. Sullivan, a principal of SSG. … Trump had no right to rely upon the fact that the sale’s terms were slightly different than those originally established in the lease to argue that either the lease or the commission agreement or both had been abrogated.

New Jersey Bell Telephone Company v. State

162 N.J. Super. 60 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1978

If within these limits and supported by competent evidence, rates set by the Board would clearly be just and reasonable. [ Public Service Coord. Transport v. … rate of return, this utility will generate sufficient earnings at current rates to discharge its obligations to investors and fulfill its duties to the public, as well as being able to initiate a new "lifeline" rate for qualified

DEBRA F. FINK v. Ricoh Corp.

365 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2003

Both courts ruled that plaintiffs failed to establish the required causation element. … The statute clearly requires, in a private action, that a plaintiff suffer an ascertainable loss as a result of the defendant's prohibited action.

State v. Ruffin

371 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 2004

There is insufficient evidence to establish in this case that there was, in fact, any suggestiveness in the photographic identification procedure that was used by the police. … The second ended in a mistrial when the key witness for the State, defendant's girlfriend, refused to testify despite being granted immunity, sentenced by the trial judge to jail for contempt and thereafter placed in a psychiatric

N.J. v. C.L.K.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 2025

Plaintiff's counsel notified the court that the order failed to comport with the court's oral finding that plaintiff established a predicate act of domestic violence. … A-1290-24 6  The court nonetheless found plaintiff established a predicate act under the first Silver prong.

ANN SAMOLYK VS. DOROTHY BERTHE, III (L-1723-19, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2021

The judge concluded "[t]he rescue doctrine clearly does not apply. . . . [The dog is] property rather than [a] person[]. . . . … Perhaps the judge was referencing the immunities provided by N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1 to -1.3, which have little relevance to the facts presented.

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.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. H.B. & L.M.B.

375 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 2005

The record clearly shows that Linda is not an unsophisticated individual. … A simple letter to DYFS, documenting Cathy’s recantation and requesting a prompt decision on whether Lawrence could return home, would have clearly established Linda’s good faith and shifted the onus to DYFS to justify its

LORRAINE COOPER VS. CNA INSURANCE COMPANY (L-6082-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2019

In those situations, we may consider providing coverage for a non-qualifying provider in an area where there are no qualifying home health care agencies available. … The very next sentence clearly states that defendant is "not obligated to provide benefits for services received prior to such agreement."

State v. Roth

289 N.J. Super. 152 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1996

Overall, this manifestation of paranoia establishes that defendant was sufficiently aware that his conduct crossed the line between legitimate and illegitimate economic coercion. … PLUS, ANTICIPATED, UNREALIZED PROFITS ON THE FUTURE SALE OF REAL ESTATE, SHOULD NOT QUALIFY AS SUFFICIENT *167 HARM FOR THIS SECOND DEGREE CRIME. THE LONE BIDDER'S VOIDABLE INTEREST COULD BE INFRINGED.

Kligman v. Lautman

98 N.J. Super. 344 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 1967

statutory precondition of municipal approval of such streets should logically extend to approval of such private streets, and that if the streets for any reason are so constructed, located or otherwise constituted as not to qualify … This is clearly repugnant to general practices in residential development.

State v. JS

222 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1988

In response to the prosecutor's inquiry it was developed that C. furnished "yes" answers to her mother's questions which established that "he had felt her body, and that he had stuck his fingers inside her vagina." … Webster defines "complaint" as an "expression of grief, pain or resentment ... something that is the cause or subject of protest or outcry...." [1] In our view, to qualify as a complaint the victim's statement must at least

Citizens Bank, Na, Etc. v. v Express Group Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2026

Any Disputing Party may request the AAA to designate one neutral arbitrator who shall be qualified as an arbitrator under the standards of the AAA . . . ." … As such, venue is established.

State v. Moretti

50 N.J. Super. 223 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1958

Super. at page 133 ): "* * * The first is that the judicial action must have been clearly unreasonable in the light of the accompanying and surrounding circumstances, and the second condition is that the ruling must have … We feel that all the testimony clearly indicates that, even if there were violations, the violations were technical and not willful and that defendant established valid excuses if not reasons for his non-compliance.