Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
1.72s
Marlon Valdez-Martinez v. Parksite, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 2025
Mizel was qualified as an expert in construction site management and general industry standards related to OSHA. … [And] noncompliance with an industry standard does not conclusively establish negligence." Id. at 406.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 2020
And, frankly, you qualified for a Public Defender. They appointed someone who is more than qualified. … He or she must invoke the right of self-representation clearly and unequivocally.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJOHN A. VARGAS v. MARIA E. COLON (FM-12-1425-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2022
Defendant contended she was entitled to equitable distribution of a percentage of plaintiff's pension accruing during the marriage and requested the judge sign a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to effectuate … Defendant asserts requiring expert testimony to establish a present value is an unduly burdensome expense and unnecessary because she did not seek a lump sum payment from plaintiff's pension. We agree.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished434 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2013
The burden falls on the party challenging the legislation “to demonstrate clearly that it violates a constitutional provision.” Lewis, supra, 188 N.J. at 459 , 908 A.2d 196 (citing Caviglia v. … Notably, many of the pronouncements establishing these policies mention consultation *214 with the Attorney General of the United States.
Cited 19 timesPublishedJUST PUPS, LLC VS. TOWNSHIP OF EAST HANOVER (L-0963-17, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2019
2 be accompanied by "written approval of the Township Health Officer showing compliance with the local and State rules and regulations governing the location and sanitation at such establishments … However, municipalities are immune from punitive damages under § 1983. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981). The NJCRA serves as a state analog to § 1983.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedUNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY v. State
134 N.J. Super. 124 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1975
Chapter 209 clearly falls within the congressional consent given to the articles contemplating the grant to the Port Authority of additional powers within the framework of the compact. [ 12 N.Y. 2d at 391 , 240 N.Y.S. 2d … These put it beyond question that the prohibition is not an absolute one and is not to be read with literal exactness like a mathematical formula. * * * * * * * * Not only is the constitutional provision qualified by the
Cited 10 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DORIAN GRAHAM (17-03-0285 AND 18-04-0608, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 2022
The trial court's factual and credibility findings will be set aside "only when [the] court's findings of fact are clearly mistaken . . . … Further, as defendant's contentions do not "go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest," they do not qualify for an exception to the general prohibition against deciding issues
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 2022
THE [FINAL JUDGMENT] OF DIVORCE CLEARLY INDICATED MOTHER WAS PARENT OF PRIMARY RESIDENCE. … "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis'").
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DUPREE S. REYNOLDS (14-03-0782, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2021
After Wiley completed his testimony, Shute was qualified to testify "as an expert in the field of historical cell site analysis." … However, we review de novo issues of law, including the legal consequences that flow from established facts. Ibid.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT OF MARTIN v. CARLUCCIO(BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2017
Our former Court of Errors and Appeals described the presumption as follows: The law of this state applicable to the establishment of lost wills is well defined. … However, this standard is "qualified by the rule of access, or opportunity of repossession, and possibility, not probability, of such access is controlling." Ibid. (citations omitted).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey, by the Commissioner of Transportation v. Krismic Associates, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 2025
Further, the court agreed with Brody that "there was a reasonable probability of the owner qualifying for the second egress access to Route 206 at the traffic light," stating, "I find further, this does . . . result in … Caoili thus builds upon law established in Gorga, clearly stating that both the "premium" and "discount" methodologies are sound bases for determining damages.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished453 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2018
For that reason, "a trial court ... grants a motion for a new trial only 'if, having given due regard to the opportunity of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, it clearly and convincingly appears that … "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp.
Cited 5 timesPublished310 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1998
Thus, qualified expert testimony on the issue suffices, even though an expert has produced no prototype, if it reasonably supports the conclusion that a reasonable alternative design could have been practically adopted at … However, as this error favored defendant, it was clearly harmless.
Cited 53 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2024
Some of which were clearly annoying and the Court finds that they were annoying. … Clearly, this is a credibility issue and the court finds favorable to the plaintiff in that regard.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DASEAN K. HARPER (14-02-0056, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2018
he qualified for amnesty under the statute's express terms, Harper, 229 N.J. at 243. … "Trial courts may overrule a prosecutor's decision to accept or reject a PTI application only when the circumstances "'clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into the program
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTAMMIE S. NAU VS. DAVID CHUNG (C-000145-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2019
As such, there is nothing in the agreement rendering the clearly defined mediation and arbitration agreement illusory. … "A court must look to the language of the arbitration clause to establish" the scope thereof and "its boundaries." Hirsch, 215 N.J. at 188.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 31, 2020
Of course, it is well established that mistrials declared with the defendants' consent do not bar retrial. State v. Kelly, 201 N.J. 471, 485 (2010). … See Alvin Powell, Fauci Says Herd Immunity Possible by Fall, 'Normality' by End of 2021, Harv.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFANG LIU VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 10, 2020
The interview notice clearly states the individual must continue claiming benefits while awaiting the telephone interview. .... … The unemployment benefits sought by Liu are pursuant to the Unemployment Compensation Law (UCL), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -24.30, social legislation enacted to provide benefits to qualified individuals for periods of unemployment
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedAlison Beavan v. Allergan U.S.A., Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2024
Phillip[s] clearly . . . … It alleges the recall notice of the Ozurdex lot was not competent evidence to establish plaintiff was injured by a defective dose of Ozurdex.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCHRISTOS DIKTAS VS. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2021
Diktas acknowledges his service as attorney for the GRA does not qualify him for PERS service credits. The only role as to which his pension eligibility is disputed is the secretarial position. … The ALJ issued an Initial Decision on October 29, 2019, concluding that Diktas had met his burden of establishing his service as a Board Secretary for the GRA was a form of employment and had not been performed under a
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna