Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.83s
S.G. VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (TEACHERS' PENSION AND ANNUITY FUND)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2021
But see N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) (requiring the Board to "state clearly the reasons for" rejecting the ALJ's findings). … Prior to the passing of N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, in order to qualify for ordinary disability retirement benefits under N.J.S.A. 18A:66-39(b), an applicant must establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that he or
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 25, 2021
A-1970-19 5 The governing legal standards are well established. … As defined by the statute, a qualifying mental abnormality is "a mental condition that affects a person's emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity in a manner that predisposes that person to commit acts of sexual violence
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJ.M. VS. HORIZON N.J. HEALTH (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 2020
Baliga had explained that in order to establish a MCID in functional outcome, there should be a ten-percent difference in the ODI. … Perrucci, or another qualified professional. The ALJ thus found that counsel's explanation was not competent evidence and could not be considered. We agree.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 2022
The TCA modifies the doctrine of sovereign immunity and establishes the parameters within which an injured party may recover for the tortious acts of public entities and employees. Feinberg v. … defined terms for the waiver of the State's sovereign immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2020
Amelia argues that the Division did not establish that the children were harmed by her overdose and their subsequent removal. … Avery, Sr. was clearly not able to remediate his drug use.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIMOTHY M. CHAMBERS (15-09-0630, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 2020
Our standard of review on a motion to suppress is well established. State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 424-25 (2014). … The trial court applied that law in finding the officer's limited search of the floor where defendant had been resting his feet qualified as a permitted protective sweep based on the officer's credible testimony that he
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAbe 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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDAVID R. MARTELLA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2019
As part of his duties as a sergeant, he was required to qualify two times each year in the use of firearms. … The applicable legal standards for accidental disability retirement benefits are well established and do not need extensive elaboration here.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew 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.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAlexander Schachtel v. Ping Zhang Hughes
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 2024
The court also found that Maksoud established a prima facie case of IIED. … Plaintiff cannot avoid the qualified privilege extended to such statements by relying upon them as a basis for an [IIED] claim.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Jennifer Sweeney
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2024
Two Jurors Who Were Clearly Not Qualified to Deliberate Fairly and Impartially Tainted the Jury Process and Denied Defendant a Fair Trial. C. … Such a general argument fails to establish plain error in the judge's charge to the jury.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished102 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).
Cited 7 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. GLENN P. SEELER (18-04-0517, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 24, 2020
It further determined that defendant proved "persons with compromised immune systems are at a higher risk of contracting [COVID]-19 and suffering serious health ramifications, including death." … See Tumminello, 70 N.J. at 193 (holding that medical evidence clearly established that the defendant's condition was rapidly deteriorating, and his health would be placed in greater danger by incarceration).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. G.P.T. (16-06-0259, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2020
Additionally, defendant contends T.F. did not qualify as a fresh complaint witness and her testimony constituted impermissible hearsay. We find these arguments unpersuasive. … Under this standard, reversal is appropriate only if an error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished424 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 7, 2012
Concluding that at least three of the four factors skewed in favor of judicial, rather than administrative, oversight, and finding that “this matter clearly involves an issue of urgency which can be better addressed in this … statutory framework governing election contests, N.J.S.A. 19:29-1 to -14, fully recognizes that “our state election laws are designed to deter fraud, safeguard the secrecy of the ballot, and prevent disenfranchisement of qualified
Cited 9 timesPublished299 N.J. Super. 440 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1997
Clearly, the trial court actually communicated to .defendant that his trial was about to begin. … preclude the establishment of an element of an offense, an acquittal does not affect the validity of a conviction supported by sufficient evidence.
Cited 8 timesPublishedIVAN TYMIV VS. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC (L-6536-17, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 2021
Lowe's moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs could not establish Lowe's was negligent in hiring, training, or supervising Hassan because plaintiffs failed to establish Lowe's had breached any standard of care … Genuine issues of material fact clearly exist based on plaintiff's and Hassan's differing views of the altercation and what led to the altercation.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedShani Harrell v. Mody Management, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 2024
A-1679-23 3 Defendant denied the claim, stating, "there is no connection between the injuries being claimed and any qualifying automobile." … Plaintiff argues that "the [t]rial [c]ourt failed to apply the plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4 and well-established law setting forth the 'substantial nexus' test."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 2025
Div. 2000), and explained that only four kinds of statements qualify as slander per se: that is, accusing another: "(1) of having committed a criminal offense, (2) of having a loathsome disease; (3) of engaging in conduct … Mehta," clearly evidencing Singh's opinion.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 2020
Following immunity and intervention proceedings, the parties engaged in extensive negotiations. … The court correctly found that the Township established a prima facie case of compliance, and the burden then shifted to Clinton 94 to establish that it failed to do so.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna