Case law

PATRICK MULLEN, SR. VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 22, 2017

"The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish good cause attributable to such work for leaving." N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(c). … Rather, he claims that a twenty-percent reduction in his pay constituted an "involuntary termination" of his position and qualified him for unemployment benefits. We disagree.

State of New Jersey v. Curtis L. Jones

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 2025

The court was clearly convinced the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating consideration. … 2C:43-6(f), the prosecutor shall allow the defendant to enter into an agreement containing the following term, "[p]ursuant to Section 12, the court at sentencing shall impose a period of parole ineligibility for any qualifying

Bainhauer v. Manoukian

215 N.J. Super. 9 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1987

He also argues that the damages were clearly excessive. … As so qualified, the trial judge's conclusion of privilege in respect of the two letters was clearly justified and requires, in turn, the same conclusion as to the two oral statements.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL OLENOWSKI (16-013 AND 10-017, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 27, 2018

New Jersey Judicial Opinions Do Not Establish That DRE Testimony Has Gained General Acceptance. E. … , taken as a whole, qualifies as being scientific enough to trigger a ruling under the Frye-Harvey standard.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HORACE J. GORDON (16-02-0181, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2020

Here, the prosecutor clearly implied that Schanck was credible, but she did not do so based on information outside the evidence. … We concluded the detective should have been qualified as an expert before testifying to the issue, but the error was harmless because he possessed sufficient credentials to qualify as an expert and because the evidence

Main Street Neal, LLC v. Jm40, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2025

A party claiming another has waived a right, bears the burden of establishing that waiver by "clear and convincing" evidence. … Therefore, the court determined Landlord did not establish Tenant violated the parties' Lease.

STEVEN P. PICCIANO VS. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (L-4430-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 2019

He clearly had symptoms – fever, diarrhea, abdominal pain, malaise and dizziness compatible with an attack of febrile gastroenteritis secondary to Listeria. … A product seller is immune from liability where it identifies the manufacturer of the defective product, unless there are exceptional circumstances proving the product seller exercised control contributing to the product's

Katina Walker v. Township of Irvington

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2024

Div. 2012); "the inspection of fire sprinklers by qualified contractors[,]" Davis, 219 N.J. at 408; and the duties of a licensed nurse when "a patient dislodges [their] [medical] tube and refuses its reinsertion," Cowley … Regardless, the facts of the case clearly established liability given the subcontractor's admissions and were not esoteric.

J.S. v. L.M.S. (L-2071-20, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2022

New Jersey Provides Immunity to Reports Made to DCPP. B. … The Law of the Case Doctrine is Not Applicable to [the Law Division judge's] Decision, and in Any Event, [the Law Division judge's] Ruling was Clearly Incorrect.

Ruth v. Fenchel

37 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 1955

We are enjoined not to disturb the action of the trial court, "unless it clearly and unequivocally appears there was a manifest denial of justice under the law." … Ct. 1857), the leading case establishing the Alabama rule contra. New Jersey follows the general rule. New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. v.

ELSIE MENDOZA-CARO VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES (POLICE AND FIREMAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 2020

To qualify for an accidental disability pension, an officer must be (1) permanently and totally disabled "as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of his regular or assigned … We next address the Board's contention that we should remand this case for the ALJ to address whether plaintiff is entitled to an ordinary disability 2 Richardson set the test for officers to establish accidental

A.M. VS. M.K. (FV-21-0400-19, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 2021

He argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he harassed plaintiff, his ex-girlfriend, or that she needed the protection of the FRO. … He clearly would qualify as a protected person under the PDVA.

Heather L. Furey v. Voorhees Township Zoning Board of Adjustment

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2024

Woolley was qualified as an expert in planning and development. … It is well established that the chairperson is allowed to reasonably limit duplicitous or irrelevant information.

M&T BANK, ETC. VS. DANIEL B. GRAVES (F-002952-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 2018

On appeal, defendant argues that he was entitled to a stay of a scheduled sheriff's sale because he qualified for a "forbearance" under subsection (a). … Judge Kessler specifically considered the language and construction of the statute and concluded it clearly indicated that given the separate procedures for forbearance and foreclosure under the statute, a homeowner could

Dcpp v. S.L.P. and B.P. I/M/O M.P.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 2025

Tests established the child had ibuprofen and aspirin in her system, as did Mother. … "Only when the trial court's conclusions are so 'clearly mistaken' or 'wide of the mark' should an appellate court intervene and make its own findings to ensure that there is not a denial of justice." N.J.

J.Z. v. Y.C.L.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 2024

Otherwise, there would be no component of the pension that would qualify for equitable distribution. … Clearly defendant does not intend to use a coverture fraction that deprives her of any part of plaintiff's pension.

State v. Owens

102 N.J. Super. 187 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1968

It is now well established that our role in reviewing the factual findings of a trial court is greatly circumscribed. … Crimes carrying possible penalties of six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses, Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 [ 86 S.Ct. 1523 , 16 L.Ed. 2 d 629] (1966).

Toll Bros. v. Township of West Windsor

303 N.J. Super. 518 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 1996

appropriated funds to establish such a program. … It is not a market analysis and fails to quantify or segment the market components, or to qualify demand through use of a competitive analysis.

Abe Cohen v. workshop/apd Architecture, D.P.C.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 2024

However, plaintiff's claims are undermined by the fact that the overwhelming and undisputed evidence in the record clearly establishes that plaintiff was aware of, understood, knowingly assented to, and even negotiated … The Drelich court concluded that the contract at issue in the case, which involved the sale and construction of a home, did not qualify as a consumer transaction under the statute. Id. at 410.

Jose Daluz v. Horacio Pereira

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2024

We decline defendants' invitation to depart from our well-established standards. … Those undisputed events clearly establish both plaintiff and the court understood defendants' counsel's April 13, 2022 filing was a demand for a trial de novo despite the attachment.