Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.29s
DAVID FISHBAIN, ETC. VS. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY (L-5633-13, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2019
a clearly mistaken exercise thereof," State v. … Shulton and WCD relied on the letter to establish the truth of its contents.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Alterik Ellis
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 23, 2025
Tamika Ginn, a forensic scientist employed by the New Jersey State Police Office of Forensic Science, was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic serology and testified for the State. … "To warrant reversal, the unchallenged error must have been 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Id. at 142 (quoting R. 2:10-2). "The mere possibility of an unjust result is not enough." State v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished400 N.J. Super. 220 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2008
The judge reiterated that plaintiffs had failed to establish that Averna breached any legal duty to them. … Barner's general proposition that a lawyer only represents the estate's fiduciary, and not the estate itself, is often qualified.
Cited 10 timesPublishedSURAIYA BEGUM VS. SENTHILKUMAR PALANISAMY HEWITT (FM-04-0760-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 2021
2 plenary hearing added a provision permitting plaintiff to apply for Singapore citizenship for Alexis while Alexis maintained her United States citizenship in order for Alexis to qualify … Thus, we will only reverse the trial court's decision when it is necessary to "'ensure that there is not a denial of justice' because the family court's 'conclusions are [] "clearly mistaken" or "wide of the mark."'"
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2018
EDA), available from the Hazardous Discharge Site Remediation Fund (HDSRF), N.J.S.A. 58:10B-4, to recompense Rosengarten's remediation costs.1 The contract, 1 The HDSRF is a "revolving fund" established … We agree with DEP that the County did not qualify for the public entity grant because it did not perform the remediation work, incur the costs and expenses associated with the work, or otherwise designate Rosengarten as
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedPARASTU SHARIFI v. PRINCETON MEDICAL CENTER, ETC. (L-1836-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 20, 2022
without expert testimony, because jur[ors] aren't qualified to determine whether emergency circumstances were there and whether that order was justifiable." … The common knowledge exception is "properly invoked only when 'jurors are competent to assess simple negligence occurring . . . without expert testimony to establish the standard of ordinary care.'"
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 2019
The court may still deny a referral motion, however, "if it is clearly convinced that the prosecutor abused [its] discretion" in considering the eleven factors enumerated in the statute. … s expert's psychological evaluation, the State acknowledged that E.R.M. qualified for "a conduct disorder, adolescent-onset type[,]" and that he had a history of depression, anger, and impulsive behavior problems, "largely
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Kappen
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 2024
The State argued that Hollingshead did not develop a sufficient basis to qualify as an opinion under N.J.R.E. 608 and 701. … The judge found –– and the record clearly shows –– that Hollingshead did not know Andrew well and had never directly interacted with him.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2024
The doctrine does not establish a blanket no-duty rule and has two clear exceptions, which are not beyond the ken of the average juror. … We begin by noting "[a] jury's verdict, including an award of damages, is cloaked with a 'presumption of correctness,'" which "is not overcome unless a defendant can establish, 'clearly and convincingly,' that the award
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT BELL (13-01-0004, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2018
We see nothing in the instructions clearly capable of causing an unjust result. … Here, defendant was convicted of two prior drug offenses that qualified as predicate offenses under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a).
Cited 0 timesUnpublished922 Rvd, LLC v. Bc International Group, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 2024
In short, we agree with the judge plaintiffs did not present evidence establishing a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, see Triffin, 394 N.J. … therefore A-0152-22 37 focuses on whether the motion record supported the court's view that defendant qualified
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 25, 2017
All four locations were clearly specified in the amended policy as covered for the period May 1, 2013 to May 1, 2014, and there was no qualifying language indicating that coverage of the two New Jersey locations was partial … Given the choice of law provision in the contract at issue here, the test established in N. Bergen Rex Transp. will guide our analysis.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 2017
The evidence found by the judge clearly and convincingly established the first prong of the statutory requirements for termination. … In order to establish a case of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success under the two-pronged test established by Strickland v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 1, 2020
The court concluded the motion was procedurally barred because it was filed beyond the ten-day limit established in Rule 3:20-2. … Because defendant did not object to the admission of the recording, we review the record under the plain error standard for an error "clearly capable of producing an unjust result . . . ." State v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARL JONES (17-02-0116, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 2019
Because of that lack of objection, defendant must now establish plain error that is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997); see R. 2:10-2. … Under the circumstances, the hammer qualified as a "deadly weapon" as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(c).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedVaswani Inc. v. Yx1 Logistics, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2025
Kameo admitted to offering plaintiff a release from the sublease but qualified it was subject to the negotiation of its rental obligation. At the conclusion of the trial, the court reserved decision. … We begin by recognizing the well-established standard of review of an appeal from a bench trial.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBALDWIN L. DON VS. EDISON CAR COMPANY, INC. (L-0680-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2019
After the trial court nonetheless qualified Dr. Dryer as an expert, Dr. Dryer testified as to his medical evaluation of plaintiff and his review of the medical records. Dr. … It is well established that hearsay is not admissible at trial unless an exception applies. N.J.R.E. 802.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIN THE MATTER OF M.F. (ML-18-07-0048, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 2022
"established [a] prima facie showing that [his] sex offense recidivism risk is not adequately captured by the RRAS." M.F.' … Therefore, the court's findings of the appropriate tier classification and manner of notification should be clearly set forth in the record. [Ibid. (emphasis added).]
Cited 0 timesUnpublished325 N.J. Super. 193 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1999
On the one hand, there are clearly cases of imagined or even fabricated charges against a parent, especially when raised during the pendency of divorce proceedings. … It is my understanding that the following questions are to be used in establishing whether or not Ms. S_________ is in violation of the November 2, 1996 order.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARIUS D. BRIDGES (17-03-0317, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 2019
The evidence established that Young's confrontation prevented defendant from selling drugs and threatened future consequences if he attempted to sell drugs in Burlington City, thus establishing a motive to shoot and kill … "[A] trial court's duty to charge the jury on its own motion is one that is not self-executing, and that duty arises only when the record evidence clearly indicates the need for or clearly warrants the unrequested jury
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna