Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.80s
CATHERINE SCOTT VS. EARNEST SCOTT (FM-01-0412-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 2020
"mistake, inadvertence, surprise, A-5232-18T3 17 or excusable neglect" under Rule 4:50-1(a), his motion is clearly … Nor did he establish that the PSA was "achieved through coercion, deception, fraud, undue pressure, or unseemly conduct." Peskin v. Peskin, 271 N.J. Super. 261, 276 (App. Div. 1994).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 2022
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 … Qualifying expenses are reimbursed to the "parent . . . who is legally responsible for the child's medical expenses."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSEOUNG OUK CHO VS. TRINITAS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (L-0104-11, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 2019
Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are without merit as the evidence clearly failed to meet the threshold test for relevancy. … "[A] text will qualify as a 'reliable authority' if it represents the type of material reasonably relied on by experts in the field." Jacober, 128 N.J. at 495.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedM.M. VS. M.W. (FD-14-0482-07, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2021
Next, the judge denied defendant's application for emancipation, finding that the parties' daughter was a full-time student in a post-secondary education program and under N.J.S.A. 2A:17-56.67(b), qualified for continued … The record clearly establishes defendant never submitted sufficient relevant evidence to support his allegations of fraud or misrepresentation by plaintiff regarding her income.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 22, 2017
The evidence found by the judge clearly and convincingly established the first prong of the statutory requirements for termination. … Miller was qualified as an expert in psychology and bonding. The judge particularly noted, "Dr. Miller has appeared many times in [his] courtroom and qualified in every instance as an expert."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedExpress Brokerage, Etc. v. Theresa Vargas
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2024
As to plaintiff's breach of contract claim against BPASC and Vargas, the trial judge found the record clearly established a contract existed between Express and BPASC. … The doctrine's basic application is: [I]n the absence of some qualifying or oppugnant repugnant?
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedThomas A. Fredella v. Township of Toms River
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 2024
Guzzardi's opinion that two-millimeter pupils qualify as pinpoint pupils. … In this case, the trial court was not bound to follow the dicta in Hernandez, and it clearly was appropriate to use the Model Jury Charges as given, which complied with well-established precedent, and in these circumstances
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 2021
So too are the details of what are clearly, albeit undiagnosed and untreated,3 mental health issues that prevent Moira from safely parenting Adam despite their mutual affection for each other, as well as the evidence of … In establishing the fourth prong, the Division "should offer testimony of a 'well-qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation' of the child's relationship with
Cited 0 timesUnpublished97 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1967
Instead, in the face of an absence of adequate proof to establish the charge in the indictment, an order was entered on the State's own motion dismissing the indictment without any trial. … A cursory examination of the statement made by David reveals that he clearly, coherently and quite comprehensively described the events leading up to the time of the accident.
Reversed on other grounds by David v. Strelecki, 51 N.J. 563 (1968)Cited 3 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2019
Moreover, it is well established that KLG is a permanent option only "when adoption 'is neither feasible nor likely' and '[KLG] is in the child's best interest.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. … Pisarek's testimony, which the judge found credible, clearly demonstrated the resource parents, initially hesitant to adopt, now expressed their intention to do so.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 2026
The facts were established at the one-day hearing in March 2025. Plaintiff was represented by counsel and defendant was self-represented. The parties were the only witnesses who testified. … Regarding jurisdiction, the judge reasoned the parties qualified as household members under the Act because they had lived at the same residence for several months.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Richard Labinski, Jr.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 2024
The defense also presented testimony from a witness qualified as an expert on cell phones. … prohibited by a domestic violence restraining order and is not associated with conduct that is not clearly prohibited by the order.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONTE S. JONES (15-04-1166, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 20, 2018
Reversal of a conviction is warranted only if the error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. … As noted, the evidence established that defendant attempted to influence the outcome of the case by threatening a witness.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedContinental Ins. Co. v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
406 N.J. Super. 156 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 2009
Owens-Illinois [ [27] ] clearly identifies that, and it is an important public policy. … Clearly, the New York action has moved at a quicker pace than its New Jersey counterpart.
Cited 12 timesPublishedState of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 23, 2024
application that established probable cause to justify the warrant. … Clearly, the commentary in the 1971 Final Report presupposed that a defendant has no constitutional right to have the sentencing issue decided by a jury.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 2024
application that established probable cause to justify the warrant. … Clearly, the commentary in the 1971 Final Report presupposed that a defendant has no constitutional right to have the sentencing issue decided by a jury.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedEarle Asphalt Company v. County of Gloucester
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2025
Undertaking our de novo review, and considering well- established law and applying a deferential standard, we reverse. The facts underlying this matter are not in dispute. … It can hardly be immaterial and waivable if a bidder is[ no]t qualified by the DOT to perform such work.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Richard Labinski, Jr.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 2024
The defense also presented testimony from a witness qualified as an expert on cell phones. … prohibited by a domestic violence restraining order and is not associated with conduct that is not clearly prohibited by the order.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished249 N.J. Super. 336 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1991
Clearly, the policy of deterrence would not be furthered by application of our State Constitution to the lawful seizure of evidence in New York. … To qualify as newly discovered evidence, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory, (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence
Cited 128 timesPublishedPOLINA ROITBURG, ETC. VS. LEONOID ROITBURG (L-1478-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 14, 2020
However, we owe no deference to the judge's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts. Manalapan Realty L.P. v. Twp. … The judge also reasoned that "Igor's alleged statements were made in a settlement conference" and subject to the immunity provided by the litigation privilege. See Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 216 (1995).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna