Case law

Nicole Morales v. Irma R. Arakaki

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 2023

However, "[a] trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. … It was plain error for the trial court to base its damages finding solely on a hearsay statement because doing so was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result . . . ." State v.

State v. Hemenway

454 N.J. Super. 303 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 16, 2018

Thus, we can disturb or reject the judge's findings of fact "only if they are so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." State v. … place identified in the warrant contains a qualifying weapon under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(r) ; and (3) reason to believe a defendant's access to the weapon poses a "heightened risk of injury."

Buzzone v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.

41 N.J. Super. 511 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1956

The purpose to be furthered by the act, and its limitations, *521 are clearly apparent. … On the basis of public policy alone, a non-resident automobile owner or operator, while driving in this State, should not have an immunity which a resident does not have.

In Re Adoption of Amendments to NJAC

339 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 2001

As a result, the terms "201 and 208" plans have been replaced by the term "areawide water quality management plan." [ Ibid. ] Responding to the comment that the proposed amendment "would establish an unconstitutional `good … Our courts have invalidated a COAH regulation only where it has been clearly shown to be inconsistent with those goals and thus unreasonable.

Teresa Edelglass v. Cts Cement Manufacturing

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 2025

distributed to Home Depot until A-0905-23 4 2017, and "each sealant cartridge or tube has an expiration date clearly … N.J.R.E. 702 provides: "[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge

State v. Christy

112 N.J. Super. 48 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 1970

In fact, another trial judge of equal jurisdiction should regard as binding the decision of his brother that probable cause has been sufficiently shown to support a warrant, unless there was clearly no justification for that … Ct. 1967). [3] The New Jersey act qualifies its relevant sections by requiring an identification of the person "if known" (sections 9c(1) and 12(b)). [4] After the decision in Berger v.

Borough of Princeton v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

333 N.J. Super. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2000

The public interest, in our view, would not be served by invoking a rigid deadline beyond which the expenditure *323 of millions of public dollars over an extended period of years would be immune from judicial scrutiny. … No particular words are necessary to constitute the grant of an easement; any words which clearly show the intention to give an easement are sufficient to effect that purpose, provided the language is certain and definite

In the Matter of a New Jersey Solar Transition

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2026

We may set aside a BPU order "when it clearly appears that there was no evidence before the [B]oard to support the same reasonably or that the same was without the jurisdiction of the [B]oard." … The Board reasonably found the delays described by Patel were routine and should have been expected by the developer when he decided to invest in a project that had to be completed within one year to qualify for the TI

Ari Ganchrow v. Suez

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2026

of that duty" without a qualified expert opinion. … The standard of care ordinarily imposed by negligence law is well established.

JOHN COLASANTI VS. NEW JERSEY RACING COMMISSION (NEW JERSEY RACING COMMISSION)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2021

Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002) (noting that the abuse of discretion standard is established "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on … The burden shall be upon the applicant to show that he, she or it is qualified in every respect to receive the license applied for. 3.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN D. APPLEBY (17-10-1645, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2019

Mollicone concluded defendant "clearly fits the DSM[-]5 criteria for a severe substance abuse problem." On August 24, 2018, the Drug Court judge conducted a hearing and denied defendant's admission. … A-1667-18T1 4 the trial court's 'interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established

State v. Tilghman

385 N.J. Super. 45 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 2006

THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION WAS UNRELIABLE. II. … The instructions were clearly given and we assume the jury followed them. State v. Curcio, 23 N.J. 521, 527-28 , 129 A. 2d 871 (1957).

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY VS. A&R HOMES DEVELOPMENT, LLC (L-4547-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2019

clearly so warn[] the insured." … A-2328-17T3 11  Our analysis is guided by well-established principles concerning interpretation of insurance contracts.

DAVID KENT VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 16, 2021

On appeal, pointing to the audio recordings "proving that he did not threaten his employer," Kent argues his employer failed to meet "the burden of proof" to establish misconduct on his part and the Board's contrary determination … "Inadvertent or unintentional acts, or simple neglectful conduct not amounting to a wanton disregard of consequences, will not so qualify." Id. at 38-39.

JUST PUPS LLC VS. BOROUGH OF EMERSON (L-5052-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2019

established. … Any person who keeps or operates or proposes to establish a kennel, a pet shop, a shelter, or a pound shall apply to the clerk . . . in the municipality where such establishment is located

Rk Newark 2 Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2024

Plaintiff, therefore, is not required to allege sexual assault by defendants' employees; clearly, this is not her claim. … Thus, plaintiff did not have to establish the perpetrators were eighteen to establish they had committed a sexual assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:14- 2.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRITTANY L. BURNETT (18-12-1258, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2021

As described by the witnesses, defendant's actions, even absent motive evidence, clearly established the elements of eluding. … Delgaizo was not qualified as an expert in radiology or any other medical field.

Wayne S. Ryerson v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 2026

The Board did, however, determine that Ryerson qualified for a "service retirement benefit." … See N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (requiring the Board to "state clearly the reasons for" rejecting the ALJ's findings).

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. BRUCE D. LUKENS (19-17, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 13, 2021

Clearly it does not. … As we have noted, the Legislature clearly intended to provide enhanced penalties for each subsequent DWI conviction.

State of New Jersey v. Keshawn McNeil

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 2024

Our consideration of this argument is guided by well-established principles. … At the evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified "the heart of [defendant's] defense" was to establish Marshall lied.