Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.80s
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ADRIAN ZIMMERMAN (13-03-0605, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2017
"Unless both parts of the test are established, defendant's claim must fail." State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 358 (2009). … We recognize "a medical diagnosis of a broken nose does not necessarily qualify the harm . . . as 'serious bodily injury.'" State v. Kane, 335 N.J. Super. 391, 399 (App.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Tp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd.
397 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2008
The site would also include four two-story buildings with "age qualified" garden apartments for residents fifty-five and older. Each building would have thirty-two bedroom units. … The notice's generic allusion to "retail/office units" would not reasonably alert a recipient of the notice that such a dining establishment was anticipated.
Cited 26 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHRISTOPHER POOLE (18-07-2212, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 2022
Under that standard, an unchallenged error constitutes plain error if it was 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Singh, 245 N.J. at 13 (quoting R. 2:10-2). … However, as noted, the State's proofs establishing defendant's identity as the man who shot Olabode were not unassailable.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 2022
The circumstances presented here are clearly distinguishable from those in J.C. … Prong Four The judge also found that the Division had clearly and convincingly established that termination of Thomas's parental rights would not do more harm than good.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 2017
He contends he never admitted Yvette and Zoe lived with him and argues there was insufficient evidence to establish he was Yvette's paramour. … Bryce's status as paramour was therefore established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. QUINNIZEL J. CLARK (17-01-0033, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 2020
The proponent of the technique has the burden to "clearly establish" general acceptance, State v. … The actual testimony at trial establishes that there was no plain error.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished380 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 17, 2005
Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 , 110 S.Ct. 3047 , 111 L.Ed. 2d 511 (1990), this Court held that Arizona's sentencing scheme was compatible with the Sixth Amendment because the additional facts found by the judge qualified as sentencing … Further, the possibility of retardation need not be presented to a grand jury as exculpatory evidence unless it clearly serves to negate defendant's knowing or purposeful state of mind.
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Jimenez, 188 N.J. 390 (2006)Cited 6 timesPublishedVLADIMIR DIAZ VS. HERBERT J. REYNOSO (L-8244-19, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2021
Turning to civil law, we note several well-established common law principles that are consistent with a recognition of a legal duty on the part of the volunteer driver. … We found no duty existed among the passengers to one another, except to refrain from interfering with the driver and, in some circumstances, object to the vehicle clearly being driven negligently. Id. at 53-55.
Cited 0 timesPublishedState of New Jersey v. Elmo M. Rivadeneira
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 2024
THE FACTUAL ELEMENTS THAT ESTABLISH [DEFENDANT'S] BRADY CLAIM. 1. Brady's Favorability Requirement. 2. … The trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial "shall not be reversed unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." R. 2:10-1.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KIRK J. PUGH (15-02-0127, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2021
With regard to any available defenses, defendant noted that the State could not establish the elements of the charges brought against him. … As to his range of punishment were he to be convicted, defendant stated that although the prosecutor sought a discretionary persistent offender extended term, he did not qualify because "it's a ten-year parameter [for]
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. VS. TOWNSHIP OF BRANCHBURG (L-1172-08, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2018
According to 2007 property tax records, thirty-seven percent of Branchburg's land is assessed as residential, twenty-six percent is farm assessed and farm qualified land, sixteen percent is public and public school property … A challenger may overcome the presumption of validity by demonstrating the ordinance is "clearly arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 20, 2022
Div. 2002) ("It was clearly within the discretion of the [agency] . . . to determine which of various theories and approaches to adopt."). … Super. at 449 ("It was clearly within the discretion of the [agency] . . . to determine which of various theories and approaches to adopt.").
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2018
Nor did the State establish that Adl already was aware of that right. … Defendant argues it was improper for the court to have permitted Gardner to say this without her being qualified as an expert witness under N.J.R.E. 702.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Ashley Maldonado
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 2026
The undisputed facts establish the following. … He found defendant's intoxication the evening of the sexual assault was insufficient to establish a mitigating factor.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedM.M. v. STOCKTON UNIVERSITY (L-0176-18, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 2022
The professor provided several reasons for his decision, notably that the nature of the course "is developing the ability to communicate in group discussions, to present ideas clearly, to carefully consider complex ideas … In a failure to accommodate a disability case under the RA and ADA standards, plaintiffs are required to show they "(1) had a disability; (2) [were] otherwise qualified to participate in the activities or program at issue
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedB.F. VS. UNITED HEALTHCARE (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2019
s expert] conceded that she is not an expert on Medicaid nor the [PCA t]ool, [so] she is not qualified to challenge United's use of the tool as it pertains to B.F. … Neither the DMHAS nor United dispute that they bore the burden to establish the PCA hours they deemed necessary here. Instead they argue B.F.'
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGERALD ORRICO VS. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION (L-5389-13, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 30, 2018
His opinion, which was based upon his employment duties, did not require that he be qualified as an expert. … Contrary to PATH's opposition, presenting an alternative theory of liability was unnecessary and clearly could have influenced the jury's no cause verdict.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 5, 2020
In response to defense counsel's objection at side bar, Judge Borkowski told the jury that Seth's answer was stricken, and it was "purely hearsay[,]" and "an opinion that [Seth was] not qualified to give[.]" … "[A] sentencing court must scrupulously avoid 'double-counting' facts that establish the elements of the relevant offense." Id. at 74–75 (citing State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 645 (1985)).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJAMEEL KEARNEY VS. BECKER TERRACE, LLC (F-016241-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 2021
The court concluded Becker failed to establish its right to relief under Rule 4:50-1 as it failed to "take the steps . . . necessary to protect itself." … A squatter or trespasser, however, will not qualify as a "legal occupier" of the property. See State v. Linton, 356 N.J. Super. 255, 259 (App.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLAWRENCE v. LONGHI VS. STARR, GERN, DAVISON & RUBIN, PC(L-5506-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 2017
Ambrosio,1 who opined: the facts in the instant case clearly manifest the existence of the required elements to establish [d]efendant[s'] liability for legal malpractice. … However, plaintiff's certification in opposition to defendants' summary judgment motions in the malpractice action is silent on this issue and does not address any of the factors that would qualify him
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna