Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
1.43s
405 N.J. Super. 24 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2008
Reports of this type, prepared by the qualified personnel of a state agency charged with the responsibility for overseeing the welfare of children in the State, supply a reasonably high degree of reliability as to the accuracy … Therefore, those documents and the trial judge's reliance upon them were "clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]" R. 2:10-2.
Cited 0 timesPublishedELLEN BASKIN VS. P.C. RICHARD & SON, LLC (L-0911-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 2020
Court found class action was superior to the company's refund policy and thousands of individuals' small claims because the Court previously held that "a refund policy–particularly in the case of small claims–would not immunize … They clearly cannot be considered to be "at home" in all four states. Moreover, defendants also certified that more than three-quarters of their business is conducted outside of the State of New Jersey.
Cited 0 timesPublished411 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 14, 2009
As a matter of fundamental fairness, excessive delay in completing a prosecution may qualify as a violation of a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. State v. … In reviewing the Law Division's findings, we reverse only if the court's determination is clearly erroneous. Merlino, supra, 153 N.J.Super. at 17 , 378 A. 2d 1152 .
Cited 47 timesPublished123 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1973
After noting once more that future rents were not recognized as present debts or liabilities, and observing that in other jurisdictions statutes have been sustained establishing independent authorities to construct public … The Attorney General's opinion went on to say that authority to contract for the erection of buildings must be found in line items of appropriation acts or in some other statute clearly setting forth the power in question
Reversed by Bulman v. McCrane, 64 N.J. 105 (1973)Cited 4 timesPublishedLaura Wagner v. Board of Review
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2024
Wagner filed a claim for unemployment benefits on May 6, 2018, which established a weekly benefit rate of $681 and a maximum benefit amount of $17,706. … The letter stated "[y]our claim has been reviewed and based on the information you provided, you do not qualify for an increase to your weekly benefit rate."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedR.A.W., Inc., Etc. v. Verdantas, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 5, 2026
Nor does the waiver provision at issue otherwise contravene established public policy, as was the case in Marcinczyk, and Hojnowski. … In Marcinczyk, the Court analyzed the legislative intent underlying the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(a)—to reestablish sovereign immunity with specific liability- imposing exceptions—and concluded the exculpatory clause
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBernards Tp. v. Dept. of Com. Affairs
233 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1992
The Act established a Council on Affordable Housing to administer its provisions. N.J.S.A. 52:27D-305. … COAH may, however, otherwise insure that housing which qualifies for credits be more than temporarily available for low and moderate income families.
Cited 22 timesPublished264 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1993
The testimony defendant attempted to elicit clearly constituted hearsay. … If this had been a traditional medical issue setting, her statement, phrased as it was, would not have been competent to establish medical probability, the standard necessary to establish injury or causation.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 2025
Defendant countered that plaintiff failed to establish harassment or actual threats, and did not establish that future restraints were necessary, particularly as defendant was incarcerated. … The court also found the phone calls, occurring "one after the other, within minutes of one another," were "clearly" intended to harass.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 2017
If it clearly reveals the Legislature's intent, the inquiry is over." Ibid. (citing DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)). … L.R., as the parent of J.R., is clearly the "real party in interest" seeking the records on her child's behalf. L.R.'
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2019
However, all the claims Carole Media asserted against NJDOT and its employees clearly implicated the permit immunity provision of the TCA. Our decision in Ball is not to the contrary. … The immunity provision of the statute clearly applied here. Carole Media lastly argues the court erred in denying a motion for leave to amend its pleading.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished415 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 23, 2010
For the purpose of PERS, "compensation" is defined [3] as: the base or contractual salary, for services as an employee, which is in accordance with established salary policies of the member's employer for all employees in … of Educ., 79 N.J. 574, 582 , 401 A. 2d 681 (1979) ("actions taken by a state agency which may substantially affect retirement age and thus the actuarial assumptions of a statutory pension system are impermissible unless clearly
Cited 41 timesPublishedPetrocco v. Dover General Hosp.
273 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 1994
On September 19, 1991 the hospital denied plaintiff's request on the ground that as a chiropractor, he did not qualify as an "applicant." … That provision announces a "public policy" of establishing and enforcing "basic standards" of hospital care.
Cited 8 timesPublishedThompson v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
210 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1986
The regulation permits a lengthy future eligibility term to be set where the presumptive term would be clearly inappropriate for the circumstances of the offense, the history of the offender, and his institutional behavior … The parole board was directed to establish procedures to implement the decision. In Williams v.
Cited 21 timesPublishedSaddle River Country Day School v. BOROUCH OF SADDLE RIVER
51 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 1958
About June 21 Alford formed the land company, a business corporation of which he owned all but two qualifying shares. … Clearly the permit should not have issued.
Cited 21 timesPublishedJackson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
296 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1996
bound by such expectation if it *15 clearly states in the manual that that is not the intent of the manual: All that need be done is the inclusion in a very prominent position of an appropriate statement that there is no … To succeed in his claim, Plaintiff must first establish by a preponderance of the evidence an initial case of discrimination on account of his race. *17 To establish an initial case in support of his claim, the Plaintiff
Cited 27 timesPublished451 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 2017
Having considered the plain language of the Drug Court expungement statute, and its legislative history, we conclude that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m)(2) clearly imports the public interest requirement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(c)(3 … The court concluded that the applicants met their burden to qualify for expungement *91 under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m)(1), and the State "failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a ground exists to deny the petitions
Cited 1 timesPublishedBarry Ingram v. Farmers Insurance Company of Flemington
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 2026
When an "endorsement modifies, qualifies or restricts the terms of the original policy, the . . . endorsement controls." Gabriele v. Lyndhurst Residential Cmty., LLC, 426 N.J. Super. 96, 104-05 (App. … As the court cogently explained, the policy clearly provides that the supplemental BCL coverage neither alters nor expands the limit beyond $392,000.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJYOTSNA VIBHAKAR v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-2276-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 6, 2022
for a position; and (4) "the employer thereafter sought similarly qualified individuals for that job." … Simply put, the chosen candidate was more qualified for the position than plaintiff.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KIMBERLY A. WATSON (15-06-0426, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 2022
As Perillo established during his testimony at the Rule 104 hearing on the admission of the exhibits, the information contained in each exhibit was reaped directly from records that qualify as business record under N.J.R.E … the evidence otherwise established the witness was an expert); State v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna