Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.56s
360 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 timesPublishedLaurena Staub v. Board of Trustees, Etc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2024
Rasin explained "adjustment disorder arose from a person's subjective reaction to stress, and that a psychiatrist would not make such a diagnosis without a qualifying event." … In Richardson, our Supreme Court held that an individual seeking ADR benefits through a government retirement system must establish: 1. that [the member] is permanently and totally disabled;
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT SMALL (05-10-3971, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2019
Some six months later, defendant's standby counsel, during a pretrial proceeding referred to the fact that if found to be a persistent offender, for which defendant "qualifies technically[,]" he could be sentenced to life … We are persuaded that the alleged deficiencies here clearly fail to meet either the performance or prejudice prongs of the Strickland test.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCarol Kara, Etc. v. Lincoln Specialty Care Center
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2024
The staff of Lincoln Specialty Care Center clearly increased the risk of harm for Ms. Hollingsworth and caused her injuries. … Furthermore, the circumstances presented were clearly within the control of the attorney. See Rivers, 378 N.J. Super. at 79; Vitti, 359 N.J. Super. at 50-51.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished299 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1997
Our Supreme Court has concluded that while the PKPA “creates a clear priority for the home state, ... jurisdiction may be based on significant contacts only if no state qualifies as the home state.” E.E.B. v. … The UCCJA clearly contemplates the potential for simultaneous proceedings concerning custody to be pending in two states. See N.J.S.A 2A:34-34; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5347.
Cited 8 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 26, 2021
Levenbrown was qualified as an expert in pediatrics and pediatric radiology. Dr. … Our review of a trial court's finding of abuse or neglect is guided by well - established principles.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 2019
3 specifically alleged that plaintiff or its predecessor in interest engaged in "unlawful predatory lending practices" by extending the subject loan to defendant "[knowing] [d]efendant was not qualified … Pardo, 3 Defendant also argues that plaintiff "is not a holder in due course" and is therefore not immune from defendant's "personal defenses," including predatory lending.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished430 N.J. Super. 587 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 2013
“Those cases establish that the involvement of a third party vitiates the requirement of confidentiality.” Id. at 417 , 640 A.2d 817 . … Director, Div. of Taxation, 108 N.J. 19, 27 , 527 A.2d 843 (1987) (“it is well-established that a statute should not be construed in a manner that renders any portion of it a nullity”).
Cited 5 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 22, 2017
Absent an express indemnity provision, "[b]y virtue of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act . . . an employer is immune from suit by an employee, and may not be sued for contribution by a third-party … The CGL policy provided coverage to the "Named Insured" listed on the declarations page, and "any other person or organization qualifying as a Named Insured under this policy."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedVICTOR CAMPOS VS. MIGUEL CRUZ (L-3602-15, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2018
Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) ("A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference."). … The statute grants absolute immunity to employers from common law negligence suits by employees. Cellucci v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIN THE MATTER OF C.E., POLICE OFFICER, (S9999R), ELIZABETH (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2020
s exemplary career as an EMT; 2) the Commission ignored the findings of the City's Background Investigation Unit who concluded that C.E. was a qualified candidate for the position; and 3) the Commission did not comply … Based on our review of the record and well-established legal principles, we conclude the Commission's decision was not arbitrary, A-1016-18T2
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEPHON L. WILSON (17-12-3438, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 2022
Hence, "the burden of proof remains on the State to establish the mens rea of the offense." Ibid. … A trial judge's exercise of discretion in accordance with sentencing principles "should be immune from second-guessing." State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 612 (2010).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. NICHOLAS B. GRASSO (16-11-3186 AND 16-11-3270, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2022
The court found no mitigating factors and "that the aggravating factors clearly, convincingly and substantially outweigh[ed] the mitigating factors." … The State further argued that NERA offenses do not qualify for sentencing as a young adult offender. The court issued an oral decision and order denying the petition.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2019
The court also found that Kindred qualified as a "licensed person" under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-26. … Plaintiff has not established any of the elements of substantial compliance.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGoods v. Lackawanna Leather Co.s.
96 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1967
Inc., which established a plant in Newark. Herman B. Good was president and general manager. Robert's son, Donald S. … In order to qualify as a sale of substantially all of the property and assets within the contemplation of the statute, the sale *456 must be one out of the ordinary course of business and tantamount to the winding up of a
Cited 23 timesPublishedDesilets Ex Rel. Desilets v. Clearview Bd. of Educ.
266 N.J. Super. 531 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1993
However, the policy was qualified in that the Board believed that students of different ages and maturities differed in their ability to handle these rights and responsibilities. … Clearly, the answer depends upon the level of the child's maturity and the parents' moral code regarding such issues.
Cited 3 timesPublishedSTEPHEN KOWAL VS. RANDI HARTMAN (FM-11-0444-04, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 2021
In 2011, defendant moved for entry of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) dividing plaintiff's pension, alleging she was entitled to equitable distribution. … The trial judge found plaintiff established a prima facie case of cohabitation and scheduled a plenary hearing.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SANDRO VARGAS (15-08-1756, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2020
Applying comparable federal rules, one federal court succinctly stated, "All evidence, including evi dence that qualifies as an exception to the hearsay rule, must be relevant, as defined in Article IV of the Federal Rules … But, the evidence did not demonstrate, as clearly as defendant's own statement, his state of mind and his intention to kill to her, to punish her for rejecting him, and to prevent her from seeing other men.
Cited 0 timesPublishedIN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT P.C. (ML-99-13-0050, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 2021
A "trial court's interpretation of the law and the consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Rowe v. … The Legislature clearly did not intend to permit defendants who commit new offenses soon after their initial sex offense to be relieved of their registration requirements. Under the circumstances here, P.C.'
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSirias Carias, Etc. v. Laura Dalton, D.O.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 2026
The uterine muscle generates no traction force which has clearly been implicated in causing brachial plexus injuries." … (1) The court shall decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified . . . or evidence is admissible. ...
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna