Case law

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.

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. AARON ENIX (16-08-1102 AND 17-04-0267, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 2022

The court found the motion record clearly indicate[d] that Mr. Washington believed his death was imminent. Mr. … Given these circumstances, Washington's statements clearly qualified as dying declarations admissible under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(2).

James Gluck v. Board of Trustees

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 2025

Through this system, the Legislature hoped to "encourag[e] qualified individuals to enter and remain in public service." Ibid. (quoting Masse v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps. Ret. … Petitioner's argument does not establish his eligibility for pension benefits.

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.

Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. Borough of Hopewell

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2024

Hopewell relies on that traditional definition of a local exchange as one having clearly demarcated territorial boundaries. … -2909-18 38  Specifically, Starkey asserted West and Vantzelfde defined the Hopewell local exchange in a way that allows them to "grab that Merrill Lynch facility, which is clearly

State Shorthand Reporting Services v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 12, 2024

This provision is not qualified by reference to any FUTA exemption. … However, she did not clearly determine whether SSRS established a FUTA A-1500-21 20 exemption.

State v. Michaels

264 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 1993

He clearly felt he was doing the right thing by assisting in the search for "the truth." … Here, however, the improper manner of conducting the CCTV in chambers clearly prejudiced the defendant. IV.

THOMAS MULCAHEY VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES (TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2019

In this case, the collective negotiations agreement between the Board of Education and the teachers' bargaining unit established the amount of the stipend paid to Mulcahey. … Thus, a teacher who is required to come early or stay late for parent conferences or sports practices clearly qualifies for an accidental disability pension if she receives a disabling

Suarez v. Eastern International College

428 N.J. Super. 10 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 23, 2012

. *29 Plaintiff has identified no evidence in the record to establish that Brown knew any statement he made was false. … [w]hether successful completion of a course of instruction qualifies a student ...

State v. Carroll

256 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 1992

We are convinced that each of his contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). VI. … The trial judge concluded that there was insufficient foundation evidence to establish exactly when the photo was taken.

Triad Advisors, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2025

New Jersey recognizes an exemption for securities salespersons who qualify for an exemption under FUTA in certain circumstances. … "Conversely, the C standard is satisfied when a person has a business, trade, occupation, or profession that will clearly continue despite termination of the challenged relationship." Id. at 586.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELENA WAGNER-BALL (19-012, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2021

DEFENDANT CONCLUDES THE REVIEW OF THE TRIAL RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CREATES A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION … She argues Ondish was not an expert qualified to testify that she was intoxicated and the testimony of one officer is not sufficient to prove the State's case.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GARY WILSON (09-08-0572, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 2020

The court held that Wilson established a factual basis for the predicate offense of sexual assault by presenting facts that established he attempted to commit aggravated sexual assault. … Petitioner bears the burden to establish the prima facie case. State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 350 (2012).

Maul v. Kirkman

270 N.J. Super. 596 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1994

As to those issues raised by appellant and cross-appellant but not reviewed, we conclude they are clearly without merit. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A), (D). … Defendants also find immunity from liability for their challenged decisions in the corporate bylaws.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PHILLIP A. STEED (15-06-0862 AND 16-07-0971, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 2019

Here, the State's expert witness was well qualified. Based on his extensive experience, Lugo testified about the typical purchasing habits of drug users and addicts. … Defendant did not clearly and explicitly deny spitting on the officer, but said that he was coughing and gagging.

ALI ALALWAN VS. RUTGERS SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE (L-4492-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 20, 2020

terminated"; and (4) "the employer thereafter sought similarly qualified individuals for that job." … DiPede clearly provided a corrective plan to help plaintiff "turn things around."

DCPP VS. M.K.F., G.M.V., AND R.B., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.M.V., J.L.V., Z.A.V., H.L.S.B., J.M.V., AND J.L.B. (FG-07-0120-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2021

We also affirm the court's determination the Division clearly and convincingly established the first three prongs of the statutory best-interests standard for termination of Meg's parental rights to Karen and Jasmine. … We separately address the court's finding the Division clearly and convincingly established that termination of Meg's parental rights to Karen and Jasmine will not do more harm than good.

State of New Jersey v. Gerald W. Butler

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2024

Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 153 (1991), and it was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result, see Dunbrack, 245 N.J. at 544. … He was convicted under count five for second-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2), a qualifying offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(f).