Case law

KIM GLUCKER VS. ROBERT BARBALINARDO, M.D. (L-2373-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 26, 2017

The record here clearly establishes that plaintiffs made an honest effort to identify an expert in the same specialty or subspecialty as defendant. … Plaintiffs' efforts to identify and retain a qualified expert here were extensive, and significantly greater than the efforts found adequate in Ryan. Ibid.

Garnell Bailey v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 2023

The ALJ found petitioner had established her claim that she was disabled under applicable sections of the Social Security Act since October 1, 2019. … whether the agency's decision conforms with relevant law; (2) whether the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record; and (3) whether, in applying the law to the facts, the administrative agency clearly

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GARY H. CONDIT (18-013, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 10, 2020

a) THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT RETROACTIVELY QUALIFIED LT. TUCKER IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. … At the time of trial, the State did not attempt to qualify Tucker as an expert witness.

ESTATE OF AUSTIN SILER VS. COUNTY OF OCEAN (L-0686-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 2019

A-5316-17T2 8 is that "immunity from tort liability is the general rule and liability is the exception." Ibid. (quoting D.D., 213 N.J. at 134). … The video was clearly discoverable within the statutory period.

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.

Yeruchom Fishel Koslowitz v. Lieba Nechama Rothstein

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 2026

The judge found no reason to disturb her initial decision that Kornitzer was qualified to serve as arbitrator under the January 18, 2024 order. … "We will reverse only if we find . . . trial judge[s] clearly abused [their] discretion." Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72 (App. Div. 2012).

Div. of Youth & Family Serv. v. Robert M.

347 N.J. Super. 44 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2002

Viktor and his brothers were seen for physical examinations, immunizations and medical care by Dr. John Eck, defendants' family doctor, and his wife, Dr. Anita Eck, an internist. … It argues that the evidence established *901 by a preponderance of the evidence that the four children were abused or neglected within the meaning of Title 9, and, furthermore, that the exclusion of the autopsy report and

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."

Dcpp v. S.N. and T.N., in the Matter of E.N.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2025

That evidence was clearly relevant under N.J.R.E. 401, even if it was not dispositive. Moreover, Dr. … Vuittonet clearly testified that after a patient submits a sample to JRMC, the sample is tested by JRMC and then it is sent to Labcorp to confirm the results.

MEPT JOURNAL SQUARE URBAN RENEWAL, LLC VS. THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY (L-3177-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

455 N.J. Super. 608 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 2018

Furthermore, the total AHTF contribution made by each entity was subject to "contingencies" that were clearly described in the Financial Agreements and included a percentage payment schedule based on the … We hold the methods the City employed were consistent with the statutory guidelines established in N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-4.2.

State v. Wahl

365 N.J. Super. 356 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 14, 2004

In ordering that the weapons be returned to defendant, the judge found that although Cinq-Mars had been annoyed by the continuing telephone calls from defendant, she had clearly stated that she did not feel threatened by … A "federal-state balance" should be maintained especially when a state statute involving public safety is challenged because there is a well-established presumption "that the historic police powers of the States were not

Janice J. Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc.

434 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 2014

During cross-examination, defendants established Dr. … To qualify under the business record exception to the hearsay rule: [T]he proponent must satisfy three conditions: "First, the writing must be made in the regular course of

Englewood Cliffs v. Englewood

257 N.J. Super. 413 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 1992

THS uses an innovative approach to discipline, giving qualified students freedom to move about the school facilities during unscheduled periods. … Clearly, under appropriate circumstances, injunctive relief is a power available to the State Board. Bd. of Educ. of Asbury Park v.

Dcpp v. E.K.A., in the Matter of J.M., R.P., and R.P.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2026

Our review of a trial court's finding of abuse or neglect is guided by well - established principles. … Moreover, the business records exception doesn't require that the custodian or qualified witness testify prior to the admission of the report; the foundation may be established through certification of the report.

Berry v. Penna. RR Co.

80 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1963

If no joint rate over the through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares and charges … Clearly, the tariff provision relied on here is not compatible with the public nature of its business. It is the considered opinion of this court that the provisions of § 1, par. 2, I.C.C. No.

Graves v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc.

267 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1993

Indeed, the law is clearly to the contrary. … The evidence, if admitted, was clearly relevant on the question of product defect, and the fourth jury interrogatory which was not answered.

In the Matter of the Implementation of L. 2012, C. 24, the Solar Act of 2012

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2024

solar electric power generation facility "two years beyond what otherwise would be the deadline for the qualified solar electric power generation facility to achieve commercial operation." … Thus, we discern no error in the BPU's order denying reconsideration of the established two six-month extensions of up to one year.

IN RE READOPTION OF <u>N.J.A.C.</u> 14:2 (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 2017

The Act establishes a "One-Call Damage Prevention System" (System) to protect underground facilities, commonly referred to as pipes, mains or lines, because these facilities are frequently subject to accidental damage … Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan, 369 N.J. Super. 2, 43 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 182 N.J. 141 (2004)).

STEVEN PRIOLO, ETC. v. SHORROCK GARDEN CARE CENTER (L-2263-20, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 2022

Therefore, Podrat was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding the standard of care owed to decedent from an assisted living facility. … Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the AOM statute, failure to state a cause of action under the New Jersey COVID-19 Immunity Act, P.L. 2020, c.18, and failure to state a claim under the

State of New Jersey v. Chester O. Rines

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 2025

Under the third prong, "the trial court must determine that proof of the other -crimes evidence is established clearly and convincingly." Id. at 89 (citing State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 123 (2001)). … The facts established defendant maintained physical control over and sole access to the backpack.