Case law

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT A.A. (ML-09-07-0111) (ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 2019

Megan's Law specifically addresses registration obligations for offenders convicted of qualifying crimes in other jurisdictions. … Megan's Law does not establish a procedure for making the "similar to" determination.

Ferrigno v. Eli Lilly and Co.

175 N.J. Super. 551 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1980

Following it are 17 lettered comments which explain and qualify the section, many of which have also been incorporated into the law of this jurisdiction. … As to warnings, the obligation of the drug manufacturer is exhaustively and clearly set forth in Torsiello v.

Fiore v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.

270 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 1994

He *533 asserted that the consensus data on heart disease and carbon monoxide “is clearly in the direction of a causal relationship between carbon monoxide and heart disease and clearly in those people known to be at risk … This section, also a part of the 1979 amendments, reads as follows: If previous loss of function to the body, head, a member or an organ is established by competent evidence, and subsequently an injury or occupational disease

In re Marvin

97 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1967

Whether the associational interests indicated by the statute bear á reasonable relationship to the obligation of the State to ensure that only qualified individuals receive identification cards for firearms, and whether the … (As amended L. 1966, c. 60, § 39) Scienter must still be established, for the statute requires it to be shown that the accused knew of the purpose of the organization at the time he answered the questions.

Bd. of Ed. v. Dept. of Treasury

279 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 1995

Clearly there is "jurisdiction" in the Law Division. The question is whether the Court Rules sensibly allocate the matters, considering the primary functions of the separate Divisions of the Superior Court. … It provides that public records may be inspected, copied by hand or copied upon the payment of such price as "established by law." N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2.

DERICK VEERDEN VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 2021

The ALJ then concluded that there was no evidence of an "unexpected happening" and, thus, appellant failed to establish that the incident that caused his injury was a traumatic event, which is a necessary finding to qualify … To qualify for accidental disability retirement benefits, the petitioner must establish that a traumatic event occurred while the petitioner was performing his or her regular or assigned duties. Id. at 213.

Hacker v. Statman

105 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1969

Defendants carried the burden of establishing that Hacker's conduct contributed to the happening of the accident. Dziedzic v. St. John's Cleaners & Shirt Launderers, Inc., 53 N.J. 157, 161 (1969). … A qualified person inspecting the brakes before they failed would have detected the faulty installation and the evidence of the rubbing. * * * * * * * * Defendant offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that

R.G. v. R.G.

449 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2017

"Because defendant did not raise this argument below, this issue is reviewed under the 'plain error' standard, which provides reversal is mandated only for errors 'of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing … Second, our careful review of the record reveals no foundation established plaintiff testified based upon his personal knowledge.

Animal Protection League v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

423 N.J. Super. 549 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 2011

It was clearly within the discretion of the Division and the Council to evaluate the available scientific literature and professional opinion and to determine which of various theories and approaches to adopt.”). … Intervenors claim that Tavss' research is flawed, citing critiques of Tavss by Gary Alt, Ph.D., a wildlife biologist, and assert that Tavss, as a chemist, is not qualified to render an expert opinion on the issue of bear

Hill v. Hill

79 N.J. Eq. 521 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1912

Hill was admittedly the owner of all the capital stock, except qualifying shares standing in the name of his wife and one or more of his employes. … The other cases cited for appellants are clearly distinguishable. In Field v. Field, 61 N. J.

Baer v. Klagholz

339 N.J. Super. 168 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 2001

Although this comment states the USDOE was not establishing a time line for providing evaluation reports to parents, this response clearly states that the IDEA and federal regulations require the evaluation reports and documentation … Clearly, the Department's regulation is not as broad as the IDEA and its regulation.

Edras Pierre-Louis v. Princeton 370 LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 2024

However, the court stated this measure was appropriate "only if the cost [wa]s not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss [of] value." … The court found "plaintiff[s] ha[d] the burden of showing that the cost [wa]s not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value to [them]."

Abeles v. Adams Engineering Co., Inc.

64 N.J. Super. 167 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1960

That general rule provides that, absent some qualifying or oppugnant expression in the contract of his employment, a broker earns his commission when he produces a person ready, willing and able to comply with the specific … It established at most that Levkoff told Abeles so, out of the presence of Silvers; and that when Abeles first spoke with Silvers, the latter confirmed that he was not willing to accede to the insurance provision.

Saddle River v. 66 EAST ALLENDALE.

424 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 2012

And clearly found that the Borough [of Saddle River]'s resistance to zoning changes at that time did not settle the issue. … That was an offer, nevertheless, defendant clearly intended to accept in exchange for the sale for the property.

Insurance Co. of N. Amer. v. Howell

80 N.J. Super. 236 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 1963

INA describes this policy as the first package policy in New Jersey available for mercantile establishments. … This language clearly refers back to an original rating system filed under N.J.S.A. 17:29A-6.

Wells Reit v. Dir., Div. of Tax.

414 N.J. Super. 453 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 2010

The first, second, and third elements are established in both underlying cases. … The second element of novation has been met since the signing of the [a]mendment clearly demonstrates the parties' intent to be bound by its terms.

In Re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:105-1.6

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 12, 2024

We also note that the GRC does not claim the regulation embodies any "grant of confidentiality" established prior to the enactment of OPRA that was "established or recognized by the constitution of this State, statute, court … See N.J.A.C. 5:105-2.3(j) and (k). 7 To qualify to proceed anonymously, a requestor must establish by clear and convincing evidence that compelling circumstances exist such that: (1) There is a genuine risk

State v. LP

352 N.J. Super. 369 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2002

"The present rule in New Jersey is that to qualify as fresh complaint [evidence], the victim's statements to someone she would ordinarily turn to for support must have been made within a reasonable time after the alleged … The other arguments defendant advances in this appeal are clearly without merit and do not warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Affirmed.

Nadelson v. Township of Millburn

297 N.J. Super. 549 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1996

All unrestorable structures ordinarily hold some nostalgic tug upon someone and may all qualify as “buildings ... of historical ... interest.” … This power should be exercised only when the legislation’s repugnance to the constitution is clearly beyond a reasonable doubt.

William Asdal v. Chester Township

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2024

for Right to Farm Act eligibility until the assessor "establishes whether the lots satisfy the Farmland Assessment Act." … But Asdal was not required to prove his claims at the motion to dismiss stage but only to state the causes of action, which he clearly has done. See Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs.