Case law

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHAYIM GOODMAN (16-21, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 2019

A-5683-16T4 3 The chief testified, however, that despite his volunteer work defendant "was not granted any special privileges or immunities." … Reversal is justified only if the courts' decisions are clearly mistaken "and so plainly unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction."

LANCE BROWN VS. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY (NEW JERSEY DIVISION ON CIVIL RIGHTS)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2020

"The Legislature established the Division to administer and enforce the LAD." Wojtkowiak v. N.J. Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 439 N.J. Super. 1, 12 (App. Div. 2015) (citing N.J.S.A. 10:5-6). … A-1518-18T1 8  "We may reverse the Director's decision only if 'the Director's finding is clearly a mistaken one and so plainly unwarranted that the interests of justice demand

City of Elizabeth v. Reinforced Earth Co.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 2024

Here, Plaintiff’s claim from breach of implied warranty is clearly barred by the Statute of Repose and its exceptions. … Regarding professional negligence: [T]he standard of care must normally be established by expert testimony.

Michael Coe v. Trenton Board of Education

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2025

Plaintiff clearly knew he had made prior complaints and in February 2016 he also clearly knew he was not promoted. See Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. … In short, plaintiff did not establish a prima facie showing of a CEPA violation.

Norberto Peralta v. Silver Line Building Products

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 2025

Both doctors were qualified as experts in orthopedic spinal surgery. The judge found petitioner and both experts credible. … He reiterated petitioner's doctor was more persuasive, and respondent's doctor had only seen petitioner once and his credibility was "suspect, as it was clearly established that he was not a neutral and detached expert

New Jersey Citizen Action v. Philip D. Murphy

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 2024

The new law exempted non-profit hospitals from property taxation, and instead established a community service requirement. … As we have discussed, plaintiffs did not establish the amended statute was unconstitutional.

Ridgefield Park v. NY & Western Ry.

318 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1999

first instance under the doctrines of federal preemption and primary jurisdiction. [1] *278 "As the agency with authority delegated from Congress to implement the provisions of the ICC Termination Act, the STB is uniquely qualified … Western Pacific R.R., 352 U.S. 59 , 77 S.Ct. 161 , 1 L.Ed. 2d 126 (1956), a railroad shipped napalm in steel casings for the Army, charging its established rate for "incendiary bombs."

G.D. VS. U.D. (FV-12-1715-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 2021

Div. 2006) (holding that to qualify for an FRO, a plaintiff must first prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a predicate act of domestic violence occurred and then establish that an FRO is necessary to prevent further … But that one sentence does not mean the judge violated established precedent.

ESTATE OF BRANDON TYLER NARLESKI VS. NICHOLAS GOMES (L-7085-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 2019

Nor did the son have an established duty of care under current law. … The judge also found that Mark's father did not reside in the home at the time and that he clearly had no duty to supervise the visitors.

State of New Jersey v. James L. Legette

441 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2015

Dill clearly had reasonable suspicion that defendant engaged in a marijuana offense. … However, handcuffing does not necessarily "establish[] the fact of an arrest." Id. at 483.

In the Matter of Request for Adjudicatory Hearing on Action of Tidelands Resource Council

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 2025

interests . . ." and/or a business entity that is ". . . directly affected by a permitting decision . . ." within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 52:14B- 3.1 of the [APA] - thereby in turn qualifying … record [did not] contain[] substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) . . . in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

Animal Protection League of New Jersey v. New Jersey Fish and Game Council

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 2023

Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan, 369 N.J. Super. 2, 43 (App. Div. 2004)). … To further its "take all comers" scheme, FAIRA mandated replacement of the MTF, prior to its 1992 expiration, by "a producer assignment program" established by the Commissioner of Insurance (COI). Id. at 298-99.

JAMES JOHNSON VS. FRANK PROVENZANO (L-2764-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 2019

At the rescheduled hearing, plaintiff established he was not the driver, and the court dismissed all three summonses. … Plaintiff claimed that he had "further evidence that clearly 1 The court also rejected plaintiff's common-law fraud claim as improperly pleaded.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF K.B. (FJ-09-0830-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 2019

The State's Failure To Present Evidence To Establish Identity And Unlawful Purpose. POINT III K.B. … The McLean Court focused on how the testifying officer had not been qualified to testify as an expert. Id. at 461-62.

PATRICIA RUFF VS. WEST KINNEY GARDENS (L-4983-14, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 2017

as a qualified MBE as one of its members recently purchased a house in Florida. … Clearly, USI seeks to preserve the status quo and its application must be examined under the more relaxed standard.

Loftus-Smith v. Henry

286 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1996

The plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a establishes that Henry cannot raise the verbal threshold as an affirmative defense. … However, the Legislature clearly provided for recovery of such "uncompensated economic loss." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to a trial on her claimed economic losses against all defendants. III.

Cramer Hill Residents Ass'n, Inc. v. Primas

395 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 2007

The FHA established COAH "to provide an administrative mechanism for implementing the Mount Laurel doctrine." … The court's function is to ensure that this power is used consistent with and in furtherance of a clearly defined public good. Here, that public good is the creation of low and moderate income housing.

Geler v. Akawie

358 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 2003

Any other ruling would in effect immunize from liability those in the medical field providing inadequate guidance to persons who would choose to exercise their constitutional right to abort fetuses which, if born, would suffer … Berman, thus, clearly establishes injury from emotional distress as a constituent element of a parent's consequential damages flowing from a physician's wrongful conduct in this wrongful birth context.

State of New Jersey v. Shakeem Banks

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2024

Existing decisional law establishes requests for disqualification of an entire prosecutor's office are closely scrutinized and rarely granted. … Super. at 591, 601 (holding that an entire prosecutor's office need not be disqualified where some members of the office were familiar with immunized testimony or could be called as witnesses); see also State v.

In Re Calef

109 N.J. Eq. 181 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 17, 1931

Clark and I think other circumstances indicate clearly that the introduction was by Neely himself. He has testified at least two ways on almost every vital point in the case. … Clearly, the proponent's case must stand or fall by his own testimony and that of his two New York lawyers, Hume *Page 197 and Fuller, who are his main supports.