Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.93s
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2021
All Pipeline welders will be qualified by testing in accordance with the weld procedure qualified for 60,000 psi yield strength pipe and all welds completed during the Pipeline construction … In doing so, the Board first asked whether PPA had a statutory or constitutional right to a hearing and concluded it clearly did not.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTHOMAS 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
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedARLENE FITZPATRICK YARBROUGH VS. TOWNSHIP OF MILLSTONE (L-0029-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2020
The judge found the Board "clearly and rightfully" was concerned with the gap in coverage for wireless communication, "clearly understood . . . the location of the church and its significance and importance to the community … "Proof of an adverse effect on adjacent properties and on the municipal land use plan . . . generally will require qualified expert testimony." Id. at 336.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState 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).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBashwiner v. Police & Firemen's Retirement System
68 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 1961
A. 38:23A—2, and therefore this period of service can be subtracted from his age at the time of appointment in order to qualify him, and (2) he is entitled to membership in the System, regardless of his age, under N. J. … (Italics ours) Appellant would have us read section 2, which is clearly supplementary, as amending and virtually repealing the membership provisions of L. 1944, c. 255 (N. J. S. A. 43:16A-1 et seq.). N. J. S.
Cited 2 timesPublishedStephanie Siegel v. Sahar Aziz
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 2025
The SEC erred in holding that [defendant's] offensive and distasteful comments criticizing Israel’s existence and policies do not qualify as private action that may compromise … POINT II Contrary to [defendant's] argument, neither relationship nor nexus is required to establish a subsection (e) violation.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedESTATE OF ANNETTE JACOBS VS. PRINCETON MEDICAL CENTER (L-0914-16, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2021
in accepting nurse's opinion testimony regarding specific identity and A-5092-18 18 cause of condition "clearly … See also Ryan, 203 N.J. at 50 (2010) (noting trial court's discretion in determining whether an expert is qualified to testify as an expert under N.J.R.E. 702 is appropriately guided by statute).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished366 N.J. Super. 30 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2004
We find that these hypothetical circumstances are insufficient to establish a significant risk of conflict. … The Whistle Blowers Act [CEPA] "serves an important, legitimate governmental purpose clearly within the State['s] police powers and deals with a direct and vital concern of the legislature...." Ibid.
Cited 10 timesPublished380 N.J. Super. 133 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 7, 2005
The DNA Act established a State databank and database containing DNA samples and DNA profiles of certain convicted offenders "for use in connection with subsequent criminal investigations." … We find that the State has clearly demonstrated special needs beyond the need for normal law enforcement. Our inquiry, however, does not end there.
Cited 7 timesPublishedIn re Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
304 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1997
In this regard, the Coalition contrasts the Board’s alleged failure to define “safety-related” with the ALJ’s guideline “in those areas where the services provided are clearly safety-related, the Company should continue to … Thus, the ALJ deferred to the Board on the safety-related issues and did not decide the issue. *273 Thereafter, the Board evaluated each of the twenty-nine services designated as safety-related and determined that eighteen qualified
Cited 10 timesPublishedState of New Jersey v. Michael N. Pillarella
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 10, 2025
Parlow was qualified as an expert in "crash reconstruction" without objection. … We went over the lesser-included charges, clearly he[ is] guilty of those.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 2025
established a solid middle-class lifestyle which required about $9,700 per month to maintain." … The court, however, did not state clearly its factual findings and relevant legal conclusions to support that award.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. G.W. (16-06-1772, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 7, 2021
We commence our analysis with our well-established standard of review. … Lanese improperly interjected expert opinion, without being qualified to do so in this case.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2019
"Probative value 'is the tendency of the evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.'" State v. Buckley, 216 N.J. 249, 261 (2013) (quoting State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4, 13 (1994)). … testimony, which severely impaired the defense's ability to test the victim's A-2065-15T2 35 credibility, was "clearly
Cited 0 timesPublishedRR v. Bd. of Ed., Shore Reg. HS
109 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 1970
Frank Husserl, a well-qualified psychiatrist. Dr. Husserl requested that R.R. be examined by Dr. Edward Dengrove. This examination was completed but Dr. Dengrove requested an electroencephalograph. … The nature of the full hearing clearly depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. See Madera v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedEstate of Eugene Boehm, Etc. v. Care One at Wall, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2025
. § 483.21(b)(3), which requires care to be provided by "qualified persons." … In short, the error in allowing the improper cross examination was not "clearly capable" of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished360 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 2003
POINT II THE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HAVE HER MARITAL SHARE OF THE DEFENDANT'S COPELAND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN DISTRIBUTED TO HER IN A QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. I. … As the trial judge properly recognized, the circumstances before him reasonably required the establishment of some form of security.
Cited 14 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2017
Or, stated another way, a 1 The Board possesses "general responsibility for the proper operation" of the Teacher's Pension and Annuity Fund (TPAF) and for the establishment of "rules and regulations for the administration … NJEA does not contend that the regulation actually stands in conflict with N.J.S.A. 18A:66-8(b), only that the regulation, in its view, doesn't clearly or plainly avoid a conflict with the statute
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRafael C. Rivera, Etc. v. Starstone Specialty Insurance Company
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 2024
Plaintiff has not established that the determination of third-party excess coverage sought is necessary to litigate their claim. … As such, $1,000,000 per occurrence is the clearly specified "applicable underlying limit." The Starstone policy clearly and plainly identifies the dollar threshold which triggers its coverage.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJohn Westerhold v. Normandy Beach Associates Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2025
That conclusion rests on two inferences that are not clearly established in the summary judgment record. … Co., 104 N.J. 125, 137 (1986) (explaining that "citizens have a qualified privilege to make statements to authorities for the prevention and detection of crime"). C.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna