Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
1.32s
Levitt v. Division Against Discrimination
56 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1959
Definitions As used in this act, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: d. … by FHA to qualify the development for FHA guaranteed mortgages; 2.
Cited 0 timesPublished410 N.J. Super. 159 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2009
J.L. permitted the boys to return home alone, watching them as they proceeded through the recreational area and into the condominium, which could be viewed clearly from where J.L. was standing. … The pediatrician's office indicated that the boys were current on their immunizations and had been seen within the year.
Cited 27 timesPublishedAngel May Rider v. Jersey City Transfer, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2026
An actual conflict of law existed between the law of both states regarding charitable immunity from tort liability: New Jersey provided immunity "from most tort liability"; Pennsylvania held charitable organizations liable … This qualifier is critical to proper application of N.J.R.E. 403 because all damaging evidence is prejudicial."); Rosenblit v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. F.E.D. (79-01-1131, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 16, 2021
Also, if the inmate's condition so improves that he or she would not qualify for compassionate release, then the inmate may be returned to custody. … Therefore, the commission clearly contemplated that courts would review the department's determination, neither deciding eligibility anew nor blindly accepting the agency's decision.
Cited 0 timesPublishedROBERT KATCHEN VS. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (L-2766-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2019
Div. 2005), we noted the well-established principal that clear language in the policy should be interpreted as written. Id. at 538 (citing Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., 183 N.J. 110, 118 (2005); President v. … Such qualifying provisions should be construed in a common sense and logical fashion in accordance with the language used. [271 N.J. Super. 409, 419-20 (App.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2019
The State then "bears the burden of establishing competence by a preponderance of the evidence." Ibid. … The record reveals the trial judge clearly and unequivocally stated "the nature and gravity of the crime here is serious. The State has every right to prosecute this crime."
Cited 0 timesUnpublished275 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1994
Friedman's name except for disability policies and a Florida marital residence which, the parties agree, are immune from levy. … Friedman's conduct was clearly unlawful and it is closely enough analogous to common-law fraud that we have no hesitancy in ruling, as we do, that it was tortious and that Mr.
Overruled on other grounds by Banco Popular North America v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161 (2005)Cited 30 timesPublishedHinojo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance
353 N.J. Super. 261 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2002
N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-8. 1 NJM clearly designed the flap safety guard that Durex installed in its punch presses and thus was a “manufacturer” of this product under the definition now set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-8. … The insurer of an employer’s liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128, cannot assert the employer’s immunity from tort liability. As Judge Goldmann commented in Mager v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedJL Davis & Associates v. Heidler
263 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1993
Moreover, all of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). … Indeed, the trial court reminded counsel during trial that further testimony was required to establish lost profits.
Cited 23 timesPublishedVERA BITTENCOURT VS. SARACENO PROPERTIES, INC. (L-9352-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 2021
Claims against a public entity for damages are governed by the TCA, which defines the extent of the Legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity and "establishes the procedures by which claims may be brought." … , her lack of knowledge of relevant substantive legal principles or A-4008-19 12 procedures does not qualify
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTouch of Class Leasing v. Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada, Inc.
248 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 29, 1991
Moreover, all of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). … The lease itself clearly indicates that it was the individual undertaking of Barnabe.
Cited 21 timesPublishedBoryszewski Ex Rel. Boryszewski v. Burke
380 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2005
Regardless of which party bears the burden of proof, the quantum of evidence required to qualify for an apportionment charge is low. … Instead, Daimler relied upon pretrial deposition testimony to establish the liability of these settling codefendants.
Cited 57 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2020
The judge agreed with defendant that the admissions were drafted too broadly to conclusively establish causation and that defendant's experts could explain and qualify defendant's admissions. … Moreover, the request did not seek admissions to establish the ultimate issue of causation.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Kelsy L. Russell
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2025
Defendant contends Vitanza's "opinions" were not based on the criteria established in Olenowski II, since he was not qualified through the rigorous process required for expert testimony. … Unless we determine the Law Division's finding was "clearly a mistaken one and so plainly unwarranted . . .
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLOIS SPAZIANI v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 2022
On appeal, appellant argues the Board erred in denying her application for ordinary disability benefits and contends she established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she was "permanently disabled from the … whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly
Cited 0 timesUnpublished308 N.J. Super. 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1998
It was clearly established by the facts that J.N.’s grandparents are domiciled within East Brunswick’s school district and have assumed all the obligations for J.N. relative to his school requirements, and that J.N. is not … [East Brunswick’s] suggestion that [plaintiff] can secure day care for J.N. is unrealistic in light of his needs, and the facts clearly show that J.N. is living with his grandparents because of his disabilities and not simply
Cited 15 timesPublishedEllsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson
92 N.J. Super. 271 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 1966
Defendants argue that the language of the commission agreement clearly indicated that it was conditional, and the contingencies not having been fulfilled, they were entitled to a dismissal of the complaint as a matter of … The court held that such provision did not qualify the broker's right to his earned commission; it merely postponed the time of payment. However, in Clark v. Jelsma, 40 N.J. Super. 58 ( App.
Reversed on other grounds by Ellsworth Dobbs, Inc. v. Johnson, 50 N.J. 528 (1967)Cited 1 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 2020
A-1299-18T3 2 Sarah contends the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (Division) failed to present sufficient evidence clearly and convincingly establishing … Elizabeth Stillwell, Psy.D., who was qualified as an expert in forensic psychology; and Dr. Samiris Sostre, M.D., who was qualified as an expert in forensic psychiatry.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedS & S v. Zoning Bd. for Stratford
373 N.J. Super. 603 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 2004
There is no staff and the applicant testified that she could not find qualified staff in 13 months and nothing has changed for her to be able to staff the business. 4. … The attempt is clearly evidence supporting S & S's non-abandonment assertion; the Borough's refusal to allow renewal can hardly be considered evidence of S & S's intent not to renew.
Cited 22 timesPublishedState of New Jersey v. Robert J. Hartobey
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 2024
Beth Sulner, who was qualified "as an expert in veterinary medicine" and who treated Nessa over three months after the incident. McCarthney described Nessa as a "shy" "couch potato" who "sleeps all the time." … When there is no objection, we review for plain error and "disregard any alleged error 'unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" State v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna