Case law

State of New Jersey v. C.L.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2025

The court found, based on defendant's statements and the report of a licensed psychologist, he qualified for treatment under the New Jersey Sex Offender Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to -10. … The substance of the court's comments, however, clearly indicate the court intended to refer to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3(h)(2).

Mahon v. American Cas. Co. of Reading

65 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1961

If so, plaintiffs will have established a loss by accidental injury "directly and independently of all other causes," within the meaning of the policy. Otherwise, not. … On this issue plaintiffs will have the burden of proof, since it goes to establishment of coverage under the insuring clause of the policy. Kennedy v. U.S.

ALAN O'CONNELL VS. MR. JOHN (L-1222-17, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2021

Such evidence may be considered by you in determining whether the defendant’s negligence has been established. … Rule 2:10-2 defines "plain error" as error that is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result."

Bonnet v. State

141 N.J. Super. 177 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 1976

her religion forbade immunization, the Appellate Division, after pointing out that the religion of the children was different, said in Mountain Lakes Bd. of Ed. v. … The poor undoubtedly qualify and occupy the housing which enjoys special benefits under the real property tax laws.

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Unitarian

445 N.J. Super. 452 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 2016

Admission to the Yeshiva is limited to qualified men, regardless of their religious affiliation, national or ethnic origin, age, race, color, or disability. … The planned uses by these sectarian institutions clearly fall within the prohibitory ambit of Resnick.

State of New Jersey v. Terrell Jackson

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 2023

IV, § 7, ¶ 13 clearly did not apply to defendant. Second, defendant possessed unregulated marijuana. … Even if he was, "a defendant's ignorance of the law making his or her possession of something illegal is not, in and of itself, a basis to immunize a criminal defendant." State v. Borjas, 436 N.J.

Rosenbaum Realty Co. v. American Savings Bank

152 N.J. Super. 81 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1977

L. at 89, 90, 91] The court stated that the State Public School Fund was immune from taxation. … But, clearly, this implied right cannot be extended beyond the range of the condition out of which it arose, the class of cases which that condition affects; and it is also plain that the condition is confined to the subject

Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

375 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2005

He concluded that even if RISA applied to the contracts, [15] Perez would not be entitled to relief if she could not establish that Rent-A-Center had violated RISA by charging interest greater than the 30% per annum permitted … The parties in settling the matter, and the court in approving the settlement, clearly intended to supercede the initial final judgment, and the court effected that result through entry of the second final judgment. [11]

In re Stream Encroachment Permit No. 12400

231 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1989

Determination of whether American Ref-Fuel is qualified or not must be resolved by the DEP. … Although Ridgefield does not clearly specify which form of emission control technology should be required, it argues, without establishing any clear basis for the assertion, that a state-of-the-art emission standard of 0.010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY SIMS JR. (14-08-1335, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 2021

We will, therefore, disregard the error "unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79 (quoting R. 2:10-2) (citing State v. … At a pretrial hearing, Madison invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at Williams's trial, which prompted the State to grant him immunity. Id. at 430–31.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT A. WATSON (17-01-0082, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 2020

While cross-examining the detective, who was qualified as an expert, trial counsel posed questions regarding a terrorist bombing incident in Spain. … The time and circumstances of entry clearly established the unlawful purpose.

Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson & Cordis Corp.

414 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 2010

of the immunity). … Yet, as noted, that is clearly not the standard.

STATE v. ANTHONY SIMS, JR.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2021

The State offered him immunity, and the court ordered him to testify, but he still refused. … At a pretrial hearing, Madison invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify at Williams's trial, which prompted the State to grant him immunity. Id. at 430–31.

Dcpp v. B.C., in the Matter of A.S.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 2026

David Brandwein, who was "qualified as an expert in the field of parent-child bonding evaluations." … Clearly, DNA evidence of biological paternity would rebut the presumption of paternity of another.

Trantino v. NJ State Parole Bd.

331 N.J. Super. 577 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2000

[b]ecause of his unpredictability and his unwillingness to clearly examine potential problems in the future. … The Legislature adopted the Commission's recommendations, deleting the "new" qualifier on the kind of information needed at successive eligibility dates, and substituting the recommended standard for the former standard of

Sacci v. Metaxas

355 N.J. Super. 499 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 6, 2002

However, in her deposition, she did not remember saying this and said that she was not qualified to make such a determination. … The legislative findings in N.J.S.A. 2A:22-2 clearly indicate that this law defined the limits of liability of licensed liquor providers because taverns were experiencing increasing difficulty in obtaining dram shop liability

Higgins v. Schneider

61 N.J. Super. 36 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 1960

This is clearly indicated by the following language of the opinion, at page 492: "Accordingly, we hold that a husband's action for consequential damages resulting from an injury to his wife is an action `for an injury to … Compare New York law on this element of the respective causes of action as established in Clarke v. Eighth Avenue R.R. Co., 238 N.Y. 246 , 144 N.E. 516 , 37 A.L.R. 1 ( Ct.

GILLIAN L. SHARP VS. SEARS HOME APPLIANCE SHOWROOM, LLC (L-1077-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2018

[the HFR] cannot serve as the source of a consumer's 'clearly established legal right' or a 'responsibility of a seller' under N.J.S.A. 56:12-15." Id. at 519. … IN THE EVENT OF A RETURN OF ORIGINAL QUALIFYING MERCHANDISE, REWARD CARD[S] WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM ANY REFUND AMOUNT.

State of New Jersey v. Kader S. Mustafa

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 2025

"[T]he burden of proof remains on the State to establish the mens rea of the offense." Ibid. … A-1038-22 26  In Arrington, the court held expert testimony from a qualified mental health professional was required to establish a defendant's "defect of reason, from disease

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT A. WATSON (17-01-0082, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 2020

While cross-examining the detective, who was qualified as an expert, trial counsel posed questions regarding a terrorist bombing incident in Spain. … The time and circumstances of entry clearly established the unlawful purpose.