Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.28s
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICO PARKS (12-06-0475, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 16, 2021
Moreover, defendant did not present an affidavit or certification of a qualified medical professional averring that Wilson died due to her pre- existing medical conditions. … The record clearly highlights that, after being informed of his right to testify on his own behalf and given the opportunity to consult with trial counsel, defendant expressly told the judge that he was waiving his right
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDonald J. Hoiland v. Ajd Construction Co., Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 2026
The indemnity language did not clearly and explicitly state it included indemnification for AJD's own negligence. … "The word 'any' clearly may and should be interpreted as meaning 'all or every.'" Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Interstate Ins. Co., 28 N.J. Super. 81, 91 (App.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedMICHAEL J. MONAGHAN VS. TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK PLANNING BOARD (L-2175-18. BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 2020
Koestner, who qualified without objection as an expert, explained that the back of Lot 4.01 would be 80.27 feet wide, and A-2239-18T4 … We also disagree with plaintiff and concur with the court's conclusion that a reversal of the Board was not "clearly compel[led] by the record," see ibid.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAWN CUSTIS (14-01-0204, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2018
G.N. acknowledged that the assailant's face was not clearly visible on the video. … A.B. admitted that the video did not clearly depict the assailant's facial features.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TIFANI K. YOUNG (16-09-0970, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 2018
[(Not raised below)] 2 POINT III THE JUDGE FAILED TO QUALIFY VAN FOSSEN AS AN EXPERT WITNESS DESPITE TESTIMONY THAT WAS BEYOND THE KEN OF THE AVERAGE … We concur and reject defendant's argument that the court should have admitted screenshots of the video as a less prejudicial means of establishing the same point.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJESSE D. SADEJ VS. ANTHONY X. ARTURI, JR., ESQ. (L-2077-12, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2019
the court found, after consideration of the above issues, that the Sadejs were entitled to a frivolous litigation counsel fee award against the Borough, the court should revisit the question of whether the Borough was immune … Here, reasonable minds clearly differed in that ultimately the jury found the Sadejs failed to establish the third element.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARTIN TACCETTA (91-04-0063, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2022
We held that a "rational" reading of the statutory language established "an obvious legislative intent to make extortion a crime of violence." Ibid. … Accordingly, a facial due-process challenge is particularly difficult to present and establish. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedTAMARA SEPULVEDA v. TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN (L-3325-18, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2022
Weichert, 144 N.J. 380, 391 (1996) (A plaintiff must identify a violation of a public policy that is "clearly identified and firmly grounded."). … For purposes of summary judgment, that discharge clearly qualifies as "an adverse employment action" under the third Lippman prong.4 4 Plaintiffs allege Sepulveda was "allowed to return after she was given a written
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedE.K. VS. S.A. (FM-15-0387-09, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 2019
Thus, the judge determined that the "'qualified' finding of disability by the SSA . . . left open the possibility that [defendant] could work in some capacity." … Lepis, 83 N.J. 139, 159 (1980) ("[A] party must clearly demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact before a hearing is necessary.").
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 2019
The harm may be established by "a delay in establishing a stable and permanent home . . . ." DMH, 161 N.J. at 383. "A parent's withdrawal of . . . … The record clearly and convincingly supports the trial court's decision.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KAFELE K. BOMANI (09-08-2019, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 2022
Under prong three, evidence that "would shake the very foundation of the State's case and almost certainly alter the earlier jury verdict" would clearly qualify. Id. at 189. … Further, it is the defendant's "'burden to establish each prong is met.'" State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting State v. Smith, 29 N.J. 561, 573 (1959)).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2021
Dunbrack met him in Atlantic City and went to several establishments with him. The man paid Dunbrack for her time, but there was no sexual activity involved. … Dunbrack that it does not clearly and convincingly appear that there was a manifest denial of justice under the law.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRE GREEN (15-06-0488, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 2021
We are satisfied that any error here was not "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. … Clearly there was an altercation. It was over. It should have ended there.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2020
Entact argued it was immune from liability under the Spearin2 doctrine, which provides contractors cannot be held liable for defects in plans they are merely carrying out. … "In most negligence cases, the plaintiff is no t required to establish the applicable standard of care." Ibid.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJOSEPH IKO VS. COUTY OF MIDDLESEX (L-1407-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 2019
When plaintiff returned to work following the surgery, he was required to re-qualify for firearms by shooting a submachine gun that he 4 The harassment began when DeProssimo was a Sergeant. … The trial judge shall grant the motion 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
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2021
Florham Park also did not establish that it was unable to accept ownership of the pump station from plaintiff. … For example, there is no evidence in the record establishing the costs Morris would incur if it were required to take over the pump station and force main.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SYRRON LAMAR ROACH (11-06-0335, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 14, 2019
The State called a police sergeant who was qualified by the court as an expert witness in the field of narcotics. The sergeant testified that dryer sheets are often used to mask the odor of marijuana. … Evidence establishing defendant's purported lie about his name also constituted inadmissible N.J.R.E. 404(b) evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Ali Bass
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2025
The judge also found the statement did not qualify under the present sense impression or excited utterance hearsay exceptions because they were not made immediately after the accident or within a very brief time between … An elapsed time difference . . . of [forty- nine] minutes clearly is not . . . "a very brief time." ....
Cited 0 timesUnpublished443 N.J. Super. 238 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2015
Society’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief under L. 1989, c. 154, as it lacked a private right of action). 5 Courts in other jurisdictions applying comparable provisions of their declaratory judgment acts have clearly … The payments are not salary or remuneration for employment, although they are a benefit for qualified firefighters—including, notably, volunteer firefighters—in return for service.
Reversed on other grounds by New Jersey Firemen's Ass'n v. Doe, 230 N.J. 258 (2017)Cited 6 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EDGARDO E. CUEVAS (15-09-0751, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 2018
I explained to my client all the State has to do is roll that video tape and by using force in a theft, perpetrated upon this owner of the store, it qualifies for a second- degree robbery … I don't speak Spanish, and he clearly understood my questions and answers based upon my conversations and notes.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna