Case law

In Re Protest of Coastal Permit

354 N.J. Super. 293 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2002

The adopted rule will continue this practice, but will apply impervious cover limits in clearly delineated areas. … using those boundaries to establish the impervious cover limits in N.J.A.C. 7:7E-5B.4.

State v. Summers

350 N.J. Super. 353 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2002

In order to prevail, defendant must convince us that there was an error clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2. … Here, the expert's opinion was not offered to establish that defendant had distributed controlled dangerous substances.

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 .

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

Starozytnyk v. Reich

377 N.J. Super. 111 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 2005

Graham would not be present; this point was clearly communicated to and understood by Dr. Reich. … This fact was clearly acknowledged by plaintiff in his deposition: Q: What did you believe the role of the vascular surgeon was such that you wanted Dr. Graham to be present?

Acuna v. Turkish

384 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 2006

Nor is it established by expert testimony. See Largey, supra, 110 N.J. at 213-14 , 540 A. 2d 504 . … Generally, "[p]rior decisions on legal issues should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence at a subsequent trial, new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous." Sisler v.

Alpert, Goldberg v. Quinn

410 N.J. Super. 510 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 2009

"It is well-established that `[a] lawyer is required to maintain the highest professional and ethical standards in his dealings with his clients.'" … The judicial system would be unfair if an attorney-litigant could qualify for a fee award without incurring the potential out-of-pocket obligation that the opposing non-lawyer party must bear in order to qualify for a similar

TONIC v. American Cas. Co.

413 N.J. Super. 458 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 2010

It argued that plaintiff's failure to amend the complaint before the statute of limitations expired "alone established *1128 a breach of contract . . . in failing to protect subrogation rights." … Clearly, as it pertains to Canon, this argument was illusory. In this case, defendant was a named party in the litigation; it had already asserted a crossclaim, had participated in discovery, and had deposed Canon.

Estate of Narleski v. Gomes

459 N.J. Super. 377 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 2019

Nor did the son have an established duty of care under current law. … The judge also found that Mark's father did not reside in the home at the time and that he clearly had no duty to supervise the visitors.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. City Council of the City of Jersey City

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2025

Krehel's report also opines the Property qualifies as an AINR under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-5(h). … Finally, the report states the Property qualifies as an AINR under N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-3.

Davis v. New Jersey Dept. of Law

327 N.J. Super. 59 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1999

Indeed plaintiffs' challenge is limited to the agency's regulation of speech "on matters of public concern" and defendant acknowledges plaintiffs' proposed speech qualifies as such. Dfs. br. at p. 15. … Here, the government's proffered justifications for Regulation 19 have not been as clearly identified as the countervailing interests of the plaintiff employee class.

State v. JA

398 N.J. Super. 511 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2008

The first factor is clearly the most important, "pivotal consideration." State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A. 2d 906 (2005) (citations omitted). … Clearly, the first category is not implicated here.

THE PROVIDENT SAVINGS BANK VS. AMY S. POULIOT (L-10197-94, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2020

Pouliot, Amy's ex-husband, Amy's cross-motion for a declaration the assets of the ASP Trust were immune from execution. We affirm. … First, Provident's assertion the trial court "clearly applied the wrong burden of proof" is unsupported by any reference to the record or to the words the judge used when purportedly placing the burden on Provident.

UNITED PROPERTY OWNERS ASS'N v. Borough of Belmar

343 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2001

This clearly impacts on the terms and conditions of these families' leases. … Excessive noise could qualify as an uproar or a violent agitation to the victim.

Associated Asphalt Partners, LLC v. Asphalt Paving Systems, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2024

Nothing has been presented to show he had any special skills, knowledge, or experience that would make him uniquely suited and qualified to arbitrate this dispute, such that the parties … As the judge stated, the parties clearly indicated their intent through the settlement agreement to arbitrate their dispute.

Sprint Spectrum, LP v. BOROUGH OF UPPER SADDLE RIVER ZONING BD.

352 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2002

While courts have never clearly defined what constitutes a "significant" gap in coverage, see Ho-Ho-Kus, 197 F. 3d at 70 , a gap which encompasses more than half of a municipality is clearly not de minimus, as defined in … Locating the monopole on a private, residential lot would clearly be more intrusive than placing it at the fire department.

MARIELA MARTINEZ VS. KEVIN J. HERDER (L-8529-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 5, 2019

"I therefore did not qualify for Medicaid on the date of the collision . . . ." … The Legislature's intent is clearly expressed and we see no basis to extend the Dollar- A-Day plan to a permissive user of a vehicle who has not been determined eligible under the statute at issue.

Regina Gensel v. Board of Trustees

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2025

She recalled the surgery took place in May 2014. 1 The Board also determined petitioner lacked the requisite number of years of service to qualify for ordinary disability retirement benefits. … Our Supreme Court later explained, to establish that an individual has suffered a "traumatic event" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 43:15A-43, a member of the pension system must demonstrate the following to qualify for

Meadowlands Reg. Dev. Agency v. State

112 N.J. Super. 89 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 1970

The act clearly meets both conditions. … It carefully qualified the Commission's power to grant a project payment.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DAVID J. SILCOTT (14-12-0935, 15-11-1084, and 17-04-0372, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 19, 2019

Therefore, defendant must establish that the judge's charge "qualifies as plain error[.]" State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 321 (2005) (quoting State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969)). … The judge found that "[t]hey are clearly separate crimes and separate offenses," and "their objectives were clearly separate, and distinct, and unrelated."