Case law

Genovay v. Fox

50 N.J. Super. 538 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 1958

Generally the determination of what constitutes reasonable care in a given factual context is the function of the jury, but the courts will not permit a person to be required to take a precaution which is clearly unreasonable … Do these factors so outweigh the risks of life and limb in the scale of social desiderata as to warrant extending immunity to the defendant as a matter of law?

Jones v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS

288 N.J. Super. 258 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1996

This rule intends to incorporate New Jersey case law establishing the general criteria for admissibility of expert testimony articulated by State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 208 [ 478 A. 2d 364 ] (1984). … Frumkin's opinion clearly "quantified" the substantial contribution that decedent's exposure to asbestos made to the development of his colon cancer.

Highpoint at Lakewood Condominium Association, Inc. v. The

442 N.J. Super. 123 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 14, 2015

High Point was established under the Act pursuant to a master deed from High Point Development Corp. … The court reasoned that if unbuilt units are not taxable, a developer could be immune from taxation unless and until it commenced construction. Id. at 539.

Texas Co. v. Di Gaetano

71 N.J. Super. 413 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1962

If the premise be conceded, the conclusion is clearly supported by Esso Standard Oil Company v. Secatore's, Inc., supra . … The action was remanded to require plaintiff to establish the fact by proof.

C&J COL. REALTY, INC. v. Poughkeepsie Savings Bank

355 N.J. Super. 444 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 2002

Shull reported to Hawkins that he did not feel qualified to properly assess its potential. Hawkins told him to have Burkett look at the site. … The record clearly establishes that, subsequent to introducing the property to Burkett, Long performed no work at all at Sandlund's direction, and virtually all of his work for Burkett was in connection with his efforts to

TOBY WELLINGTON VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (L-0274-18, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2021

Landa's report clearly established a permanent injury, in his deposition, plaintiff described his daily routine following his injuries and complained of "back stiffness," "shooting pain" in his left leg, and "numbness … The verbal threshold is not a grant of immunity; it is a limitation on recoverable damages when the public employee or entity is not immune. See Gilhooley v.

State v. G.E.P.

458 N.J. Super. 436 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2019

"Probative value 'is the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.' " State v. Buckley , 216 N.J. 249 , 261, 78 A.3d 958 (2013) (quoting State v. … Admission of the CSAAS expert testimony, which severely impaired the defense's ability to test the victim's credibility, was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.

Lonegan v. State

341 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2001

In other cases, the independent authorities were clearly separate government entities that served special and discrete governmental purposes. See Enourato v. … Only if such repairs and maintenance are carried from year to year do they qualify for treatment as a capital expense called "deferred maintenance."

DCPP VS. S.K. AND J.B., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF N.K. (FG-16-0038-17, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 1, 2018

Eva's Village also had concerns that N.K. was not up to date with her immunizations. … Singer, who was qualified as an expert witness in the field of psychology with an emphasis on parenting. S.K. testified on her own behalf.

State v. Levine

253 N.J. Super. 149 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 1992

A distinction must be drawn, however, between a claim that a sentence is "illegal" and a claim that the sentence is merely "excessive": The rule is, of course, fairly established that mere excessiveness of sentence otherwise … Those who qualify for sentence there are male offenders between 15 and 30 years of age who have not previously been confined in the New Jersey State Prison or in a like institution of another state.

Ramon A. Penn Jimenez, Etc. v. Robert Wood Johnson Barnabas Health

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 2026

In the alternative, plaintiff asserted decedent's medical records did not clearly indicate defendant physicians were employees of Rutgers. … We deem this distinction important because, as one commentator has observed: The 1994 amendment of [N.J.S.A. 59:8-9] established the requirement that a late notice of claim be filed within

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. L.O. (88-01-0265, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 8, 2020

Defendant clearly does not meet the last three of those criteria. 3 "'HIV' means the human immunodeficiency virus or any other related virus identified as a probable causative agent of AIDS." N.J.S.A. 26:5C-15. … The Court noted, however, that the rule does not "provide authority for the courts to establish and oversee a broad-based program to release or furlough inmates in state prison." Id. at 5.

State v. Schenkolewski

301 N.J. Super. 115 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1997

It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office, or lacked jurisdiction, or for … He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Orlando Rada v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 2024

A-3146-22 7 and (3) whether in applying the law to the facts, "the agency clearly erred in reaching [its] conclusion . . . ." … clearly within his duties.

Fayette Fair Trade, Inc. v. Governing Body of City of Perth Amboy

395 N.J. Super. 453 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2007

See N.J.S.A. 14A:8-1(1)(b) ("A corporation may establish . . . [p]lans providing for . . . profit-sharing. . . ."). … No license shall be issued unless all of the partners would qualify as individual applicants.

State of New Jersey v. Freddy Brambila

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 2025

PROSECUTOR: Detective, if you are qualified to answer that. If you are not qualified to answer that specific question, then I'm going to ask you not to. … In establishing its prima facie case, "the State may not deceive the grand jury or present its evidence in a way that is tantamount to telling the grand jury a 'half-truth.'" Ibid.

MIKE ASSAD VS. ABSECON BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-0897-19, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 2020

History and status of physical health compiled in accordance with State regulations, including results of any physical examinations given by qualified school district employees and immunizations; 5. … The last public school district that a student attended is responsible for "keep[ing] for 100 years a mandated record of a student's name, date of birth, name of parents, gender, health history and immunization, standardized

Dendrite Intern., Inc. v. Doe No. 3

342 N.J. Super. 134 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 2001

Those three statements asserted plaintiffs were (1) "`ripping off'" clients; (2) plaintiffs "`were not qualified to do the work for defendant ... … "Words that clearly denigrate a person's reputation are defamatory on their face and actionable per se." Printing Mart-Morristown, supra, 116 N.J. at 765 , 563 A. 2d 31 .

Schinck v. BD. OF ED. OF WESTWOOD CONSOL. SCHOOL DIST.

60 N.J. Super. 448 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 1960

The provision of the School Bond Law under attack is clearly distinguishable from cases where the law does or does not become effective at the discretion of an alien will. … To qualify for consideration under N.J.S.A. 18:5-86, a school district must be in a position of not being able to issue bonds pursuant to the lesser restrictions of the two preceding sections of the School Bond Law.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES H. VAUGHN (04-08-1042, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 2019

not qualifying her as a juror of my peers. … Despite this prospective juror was not disqualified and was still selected as well as served as a juror in my case clearly infringing upon my State and Federal right to be tried by a jury