Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.42s
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2020
While the record does not disclose when the walkway was constructed, it clearly existed before the Festival and was presumably used by students and persons attending school events. … Under the TCA, "immunity from tort liability is the general rule [for a public entity] and liability is the exception." Polzo v. Cty. of Essex (Polzo I), 196 N.J. 569, 578 (2008) (quoting Coyne v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Hamilton Morgan
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2025
Deady had compared over 10,000 specimens in the course of his career and been qualified as a firearms expert approximately 180 times. … A-0941-22 20 "The authentication of a photograph requires verification by a qualified individual, one who has made personal observations, thereby establishing that the conditions
Cited 0 timesUnpublished129 N.J. Eq. 444 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1941
The English courts, in particular, have been troubled with the notion of applying any principle of public policy which cannot be clearly defined." … "In my judgment, such a condition is clearly a condition contrary to public policy.
Cited 28 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 2024
As such, "a court may . . . determine that an ambiguous incident qualifies as prohibited conduct, based on a finding of violence in the parties' past." Ibid. … Indeed, the parties entered into the Agreement and attested they were doing so "of their own volition without any duress, undue influence or coercion of any kind," and the judge specifically found nothing before him established
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Andrzej J. Dabek
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 2023
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH DEFENDANT'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH … "First, 'the judicial action must have been clearly unreasonable in the light of the accompanying and surrounding circumstances.'" Ibid. "Second, the ruling must have prejudiced the . . . " defendant. Ibid.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMilton Perkins v. Board of Trustees, Etc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2024
the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly … The Board appropriately applied the traumatic event standard established in Richardson, and its finding that there was no "combination of unusual circumstances" is supported by the record.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEstate of James G. Bender v. Bq Basements and Concrete
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 2025
The contract and tort claims, including breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death are not immune from arbitration. … at 37 ([I]t is well-established that CFA claims may be the subject of arbitration and need not be exclusively presented in a judicial forum.); Rockel v. Cherry Hill Dodge, 368 N.J. Super. 577, 580 (App.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Jessica Ferguson
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2025
Defense witness Christopher Friedrich, a licensed counselor qualified at trial as an expert on "symptomology and manifestations of ADHD, adult victimization, and trauma," testified to examining and testing defendant and … No "special deference" is owed to the "[municipal] court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts." Comprehensive Neurosurgical, P.C. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Derrick S. Jackson
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 14, 2026
"In weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors on a qualitative as well as quantitative basis," the court found that "the aggravating factors clearly and convincingly substantially outweigh[ed] the lack of mitigating … Applying this well-established law, we consider defendant's arguments.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedC.L.H. VS. T.F.H. (FV-03-0708-18, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2019
The judge, following a full-day trial, found plaintiff qualified for protection under the PDVA because she was married to defendant. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d). Applying the dual-element test set forth in Silver v. … On the contrary, it has not been established that a constitutional right to counsel arises in a civil action under the PDVA.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUnited Specialty Insurance Company v. Century Waste Services, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2023
"A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Rowe v. … We noted the clearest approach occurs when the insurer clearly expresses that if the insured consents, it would provide a defense subject to the reservation of rights. Id. at 143.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Healthcare Coalition v. Nj Dep't of Banking and Insurance
440 N.J. Super. 129 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 2015
The Department agreed that the rule would not permit the kind of wide-ranging, burdensome discovery of which the Court clearly disapproved in Selective, supra, 210 N.J. at 609. … Moreover, the competing expert reports submitted on behalf of appellants and the insurance industry demonstrate that well- qualified experts can disagree on the appropriate methods to calculate
Cited 9 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 2019
R.K. argues that the Division acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting a determination by an administrative law judge (ALJ) that R.K. qualified for the caregiver exemption. … We have already accepted the first ground, which was that there were no records establishing R.K.'s medical condition between March 2013 and up to early November 2013.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedVOADV PROPERTY, INC. VS. JACQUELINE WARREN (LT-001177-18, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 2019
When a party is not seeking damages, she "need establish only equitable fraud[.] . . . … This was clearly material to her decision to leave voluntarily.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDcpp v. S.M., in the Matter of Y.B.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2025
Katz, Ph.D., who was qualified as an expert in psychology without objection. Yasmin's law guardian did not present any evidence. Defendant testified on his own behalf. … We intervene only "if the trial court's conclusions are 'clearly mistaken or wide of the mark.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210, 227 (2010) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNapolitano v. Princeton Univ. Trustees
186 N.J. Super. 548 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 13, 1982
Any quotations, however small, must be placed in quotation marks or clearly indented beyond the regular margin. … If the student has done so, he or she must state the fact and indicate clearly the nature and extent of his or her obligation.
Cited 36 timesPublishedIN THE MATTER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF L. 2018, C. 16, ETC. (NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 2021
With those categories excluded entirely, they opined that each plant would be financially viable for the next three years and that, therefore, none of the applicants qualified for the ZEC program. … 234 N.J. at 157 (quoting Russo, 206 N.J. at 27); see also N.J.S.A. 48:2-46 (explaining that this court may "review any order of the board [of Public Utilities] and . . . set aside such order in whole or in part when it clearly
Cited 0 timesPublished432 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 16, 2013
The record clearly establishes that the creation of La Sammana Management did not serve Kaye’s business interests, only Rosefielde’s unwarranted financial interests. … Rosefielde simply does not qualify as an “employee” within the meaning of the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. In D’Annunzio v.
Reversed in part by Bruce Kaye v. Alan P. Rosefielde (073353), 223 N.J. 218 (2015)Cited 12 timesPublishedGrillo v. Bd. of Realtors of Plainfield Area
91 N.J. Super. 202 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1966
It clearly has, by its `nature' and `character,' a `monopolistic tendency.' … They argue they may properly strive to establish and improve standards for their occupation.
Cited 33 timesPublished204 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1985
The lack of a technically qualified plaintiff cannot prevent this court from acting in the interest of an incompetent. … The testimony received clearly supports the conclusion that D.K. is ill and cannot manage her affairs. That was the unanimous conclusion of the medical experts.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna