Case law

Valley Hosp. v. Kroll

368 N.J. Super. 601 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 2003

It is a federally funded subsidized program that reimburses for medical services provided to qualified elderly and disabled persons. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 . The Medicare program consists of two parts. … The hospital clearly exercised a decisive advantage in bargaining. Prior to any treatment, a patient—or in this case someone acting on his behalf—was compelled to sign it.

Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.

65 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1961

. * * *' The use of the word `judgment,' without any qualifying or amplifying language, and in the context found, imports the idea of `final judgment.' … Clearly, it deals with the final disposition of the issues raised in a proceeding.

Nynex Mob. Comm. Co. v. Hazlet Tp.

276 N.J. Super. 598 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1994

There is clearly in this record an identifiable public interest." … Thus, under Sica , Nynex has established the affirmative criteria necessary to a "d" variance.

State v. Sherman

367 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 2004

But the Supreme Court has, I think clearly indicated, whether it be implicitly or explicitly, that emotional harm is sufficient to satisfy the statute. … Some of the children suffered "minor cuts and bruises" and "insubstantial transient injuries," id. at 766 , but the court held that their injuries were not sufficiently substantial or serious to qualify as bodily harm under

Ross Systems v. Linden Dari-Delite, Inc.

62 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 6, 1960

As a matter of fact, Samila was represented by a highly qualified lawyer, and a copy of the franchise agreement was furnished to him at the closing of the sale of stock in Linden. … A reading of the agreement would clearly indicate to Samila and his counsel that no such representation *447 was contained therein.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER SANTIAGO (93-05-1916, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 10, 2021

The Court in Carter stressed, This Court has stated repeatedly that to qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to … Once again, defendant in this latest challenge has failed to establish a basis to overturn his convictions. Affirmed. 5 A-2815-19

ANDREA CARTWRIGHT VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2019

We also found the employer's "failure to provide claimant with the needed information . . . clearly [led] to the confusion that caused [her] to file her . . . application late," id. at 4, and remanded for the Board to … The burden rests upon the claimant to establish his or her right to unemployment compensation benefits. Patrick v. Bd. of Review, 171 N.J. Super. 424, 426 (App. Div. 1979).

Karen Hendrie v. Francis Hendrie

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2025

The standard of living established during the marriage or civil union; e. … Category one includes passive immune assets acquired pre-marital, by gift or inheritance, held in one party's name. Id. at 486-87.

In Re Adoption of NJAC 7: 26B

250 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1991

N.J.S.A. 13:1K-8f clearly does not provide authority for this exemption, since the exemptions it permits are based on the nature of the industrial establishment, rather than on the identity of the owners. … There is perhaps some merit to this position; one can also rationally urge that an intra-family transfer might be much more likely to qualify for a deferral of the obligation to implement a cleanup plan under N.J.S.A. 13:

Hughes v. Monmouth University

394 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2007

There is no dispute that the University, as an institution of higher learning, qualifies as an inherently beneficial use. … The court stated: A zoning board must: (1) identify the proposed use and delineate its function; (2) establish how the proposed use is integrated into the core function of the inherently beneficial use; and (3) establish

DON ROGERS, INC. VS. TOWNSHIP OF FAIRFIELD PLANNING/ZONING BOARD (L-0440-19, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2021

The resolution stated the application "was denied because [plaintiff] needed a use variance even though the argument is clearly a pre-existing use," and plaintiff "did not apply for a D-Variance." … Instead, the court analyzed whether plaintiff qualified as an existing resource extraction operation as defined in the 2015 Ordinance.

RICK RUSSO VS. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY (L-1135-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 2021

for this position clearly lacks merit and provides no circumstantial evidence of retaliation. … Lastly, plaintiff failed to establish a hostile work environment.

Theresa Cupo v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 5, 2024

Only on appeal does plaintiff now contend this court should establish a new "legal principle that it is sufficient" to establish "a total disability" from one incident "even though it acts in combination with an underlying … The statute and Richardson do not say a petitioner must establish a traumatic event that "substantially" caused a permanent and totally disability.

State of New Jersey v. Darwens H. Cadet

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 2024

Finally, the State produced UCPO Detective Nicholas Falcicchio, who was qualified as an expert in historical cell site analysis. … We agree with defendant that admission of his invocation and the subsequent questioning was clearly error.

M&T Bank v. Bryan Vera

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 2025

After "painstakingly recount[ing] the prior history and disposition[s] of [defendant's] applications," the court found defendant did "not have a meritorious defense to vacate the final judgment, nor d[id] [he] qualify … Plaintiff counters that the trial court properly found it clearly established its ownership of the note, and that defendant continues to misunderstand First Tennessee's role as the warehouse lender providing Omega with

DORIS GONZALEZ VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-2777-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 19, 2020

Metzger, 152 N.J. 490 (1998), "one word" could suffice, the judge found based on his review of the incidents catalogued by plaintiff that there was nothing said or done by Spencer "that [could] qualify as outrageous or … Here, plaintiff failed to satisfy the third and fourth prongs to establish a prima facie CEPA claim.

LATOYA HENDRICKS VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 2021

Here, by her own admission, Hendricks established that she resigned because of childcare issues. … Clearly, there was sufficient credible evidence to support the Board's decision to deny Hendricks unemployment benefits, and the Board's decision was not "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable."

Matter of American Reliance Ins.

251 N.J. Super. 541 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1991

As we noted earlier, PLIGA was established to avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the insolvency of an insurer. … The Order does not prescribe a legal standard "that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable" from the enabling statute. Metromedia, Inc. v.

Cast Art Industries v. Kpmg LLP

416 N.J. Super. 76 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2010

In any event, the objection is clearly without merit. … Moreover, even assuming Sherman would have been qualified to value Cast Art, he did not in fact undertake to make an independent valuation of the company.

Andrea Davidovich v. Israel Ice Skating Federation

446 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 2016

The ISU is a Swiss association established in accordance with Article 60 of the Swiss Civil Code, placing it under the jurisdiction of Switzerland. … We accordingly ordered plaintiff to pursue such measures, even though we acknowledged that the provisions within the ISU did not clearly afford her as an individual skater such a pathway