Case law

Franco v. Davis

112 N.J. Super. 496 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1970

Transport Corp., 56 N.J. 500 (1970), which abolished the doctrine of child-parent immunity. … The latter case, however, clearly presented a change of factual situation in a child support case and did not contemplate a change in decisional law.

Hauser v. YMCA

91 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1966

The use to be administered is public and charitable, but the organization and management are private." *176 Clearly, this pronouncement by our Supreme Court makes it conclusive that defendant comes within the purview of the … It is significant that in so deciding the court found no problem resulting from the fact that plaintiff was temporarily residing in the defendant's establishment, or that she was making payment for such *178 residency.

In re Wheeler

433 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2013

Pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:58-4d, a *580 carry permit may be tailored to the need established by the applicant. … Privileges and Immunities The applicants also contend that subsection l of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.

McDonough v. Jorda

214 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1986

That municipal immunity existed here is open to no cavil when one reads N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 and the comment which follows it from the Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity (1972). … Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity.... [Emphasis supplied].

Bd. of Ed. Tp. N. Bergen v. N. Bergen Fed. Tchrs.

141 N.J. Super. 97 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1976

They are clearly irrelevant to the issue before us. … Such a provision clearly should be negotiable and arbitrable.

Nuwave Investment Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co.

432 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 19, 2013

While a statement of opinion generally enjoys absolute immunity, a statement of fact is actionable [o]nly if the statement suggested specific factual assertions that could be proven true or false. … Clearly, such determination would be more appropriately made by the Court. See, e.g., Tannen v.

Pinckney v. City of Jersey

140 N.J. Super. 96 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1976

The basic approach taken by the Legislature was to reestablish sovereign immunity 1 and at the same time grant waiver of that immunity under circumstances and in accordance with conditions set forth in the Act. 2 In establishing … It is a firmly established rule in American jurisprudence that acts in derogation of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed and that provisions which are conditions which the sovereign attaches to the waiver of immunity

Housing Authority v. Sagner

142 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1976

Its employees enjoy civil service status under guidelines established by the State. N. J. S. A. 55:14A-6.1. … In that case the National Housing Agency was held to be immune from the operation of a local zoning ordinance. That agency was clearly a federal one and not a state one. Leslie Miller, Inc. v. State of Arkansas, 352 U.

Medford v. Duggan

323 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 1999

Defense counsel refused to supply a copy of the statement contending it was "clearly privileged work-product". … Here, unlike Payton , the investigation was undertaken after suit was commenced and clearly was in anticipation of litigation.

State v. Dunns

266 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1993

1992, no matter when the immunity was obtained. … The witness in the case before us, Elliott, rather clearly indicated at the Evid.R. 8 hearing before trial that she would not testify for the State.

Interstate Wrecking Co. v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission

103 N.J. Super. 394 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 1968

It has long been established that a state instrumentality does have governmental immunity unless waived by the Legislature. Breen v. Mortgage Commission of State of New York, 285 N. Y. 425 , 35 N. E. 2d 25 (Ct. … This court concludes that the aforementioned immunity, as the result of the language cited, was clearly waived by legislative authority in authorizing the compact, and it appears to be the only construction as a matter of

Mallory v. Mallory

179 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1981

At such time as the taxpayer qualifies and elects to receive distribution from his account, the expected benefit derived will be the payment of taxes at a lower rate on the sums so received. *559 The Congress, in establishing … To protect the participants and their beneficiaries from the adverse claims of creditors was clearly one of Congress' stated intents. ERISA § 2(c), 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 (c).

Henschke v. Borough of Clayton

251 N.J. Super. 393 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1991

Rather the approach should be whether an immunity applies and if not should liability attach. … Even when one of the act's provisions establishes liability, that liability is ordinarily negated if the public entity possesses a corresponding immunity. See Malloy v. State, 76 N.J. 515, 519 , 388 A. 2d 622 (1978).

State v. Greely

30 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1954

It will be hereinafter shown, and I think by the clearly established law of this State, that the omission of an express count for robbery was of no consequence, that robbery was inherently in the case, and that notwithstanding … The immunity is not ordained to achieve a uniformity of moral perfection in its results. Its operation is not contingent upon a relation to happy circumstance.

2175 Lemoine Ave. v. Finco, Inc.

272 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 1994

Merely establishing a contract between parties to a real estate transaction by an unlicensed person violates the statute. Corson v. Keane, supra [, 4 N.J. 221 [ 72 A. 2d 314 ] (1950)]. … On the other hand, he is not immune from the responsibility, if he fails to employ in the work he undertakes that reasonable knowledge and skill exercised by lawyers of ordinary ability and skill.

NL Industries, Inc. v. New Jersey

442 N.J. Super. 428 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 27, 2014

in 1977, because: (1) the Legislature did not clearly and unequivocally express its intent to waive immunity retroactively; and (2) any waiver of immunity must be strictly construed. … As the Court explained, “[W]hen the Legislature has clearly indicated that a statute should be given retroactive effect, the courts will give it that effect unless it will violate the constitution or result in a manifest

McCarthy v. Ehrens

212 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1986

The fireman's rule was first established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Krauth v. Geller, 31 N.J. 270 (1960). … Therefore, this court cannot create an exception to a rule established by the Supreme Court.

Tri-State Met. Naturists v. Lower Tp.

219 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1987

Having completed the inspection, it is this court's conclusion that the area can clearly be labeled as secluded. … The legislature has provided for the establishment of county park systems and governance under autonomous bodies in terms that clearly exclude the divisive control claimed by the municipality here.

D'EUSTACHIO v. Beverly

177 N.J. Super. 566 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1979

Much later, when No. 1 and No. 2 had defaulted in this action, plaintiff, on oral proofs, established over $16,000 in damages for losses sustained. [3] On January 16, 1978 plaintiff's counsel wrote a detailed letter to the … Clearly, the Legislature did not bind itself to a fixed immunity-liability balance when it adopted the Tort Claims Act.

State in Interest of DH

153 N.J. Super. 490 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1977

Satisfied by Fidelity's showing that it could not reasonably ascertain the juveniles' identity by way of customary investigatory procedures, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court judge entered an order affording Fidelity qualified … applying this "delicate" balancing here, we would in any event have concluded that the policy of confidentiality would not have been unwarrantedly impinged upon where the effect of non-intrusion would be the fortuitous immunization