Case law

State v. Jijon

264 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 1993

Defendant’s contentions -are clearly without merit. R. 2:11—3(e)(2). It is now well established that burglary is complete upon entry with purpose of committing an offense. See State v. … Defendant’s argument that the joyriding conviction immunizes him from the third degree burglary conviction because the former is a disorderly persons offense is a non sequitur.

Guaman v. Velez

432 N.J. Super. 230 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 13, 2013

In 2005, the Legislature adopted The Family Health Care Coverage Act (FHCCA), N.J.S.A. 30:4J-8 to -19, which re-established, reformed, and expanded a prior program to provide subsidized health insurance coverage to qualifying … This heavy reliance on the program indicates how necessary and effective it is, and clearly demonstrates how substantially the restriction operates against the protected class.

Environmental Protection Dep't v. Franklin Tp.

181 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that *337 property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

ROBERT FUHRMAN VS. HEATHER MAILANDER (L-4906-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2021

Ct. 1913), the Court explained: when the fact clearly appears that a statutory provision is entirely directory in character; that the essential purpose of the law has been answered; that … Defendant's ministerial duty under N.J.S.A. 40:69A-187 was to determine whether the petition was "signed by a sufficient number of qualified voters."

Nj Sports Prod. v. Bostick Promotions

405 N.J. Super. 173 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 2007

A motion to dismiss "may not be denied based on the possibility that discovery may establish the requisite claim; rather, the legal requisites for plaintiffs claim must be apparent from the complaint itself." Edwards v. … The court denied summary judgment to allow for discovery and a hearing as to whether the privilege should be no more than a qualified one. The factual context of Devlin is significantly different than the present case.

Pascale v. Pascale

274 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 1994

The burden of establishing such immunity as to any particular asset will rest upon the spouse who asserts it." [ Painter v. Painter, supra, 65 N.J. at 214 , 320 A. 2d 484 ; See also Landwehr v. … They were clearly united economically.

Selective Insurance v. National Continental Insurance

385 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

As the owner and operator of a commercial vehicle, National’s insured qualified as a tortfeasor who was not required to maintain PIP benefits. See Sherman v. … N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 undoubtedly affords personal immunity from claims for PIP reimbursement to commercial motor vehicle owners and operators who have insurance coverage.

Casale v. Housing Authority, City of Newark

42 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1956

The last event in that sequence may be non-action; but that does not render the prior act immune. … The Court of Errors and Appeals said the facts fell "clearly within" the principle of active wrongdoing. There was no reference to the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Rowe v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

383 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2006

Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 , 658 A. 2d 1230 (1995) ("A *701 trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference."). … Clearly such a conflict exists here, for whether plaintiff's case withstands summary judgment depends upon which state's law applies.

Knesz v. Central Jersey Bank & Trust Co.

188 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1982

collecting bank within this definition customarily relies on Article 4 of the Code dealing with bank deposits and collections, and more particularly on § 4-201, which provides in pertinent part that Unless a contrary intent clearly … establishment.

Evans-Aristocrat Industries, Inc. v. City of Newark

140 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1976

It is obvious the Legislature realized the catastrophic effect an injunction might have on the various public projects under the control of the Port Authority, and established safeguards so that such suits were maintainable … commissioners, officers or employees except upon complaint of the Attorney-General of either State, each of whom is expressly authorized to bring any proceeding for an injunction, in his discretion, on behalf of any person. *232 Clearly

State v. Battle

256 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1992

This argument is clearly without merit and does not require discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Hence, a disorderly persons offense qualifies as a prior conviction. State v. Kates, 185 N.J. Super. 226, 227-28 , 447 A. 2d 1367 (Law Div. 1982).

Clark v. Jersey City

8 N.J. Super. 33 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1950

Under R.S. 54:5-53.1, the municipality's immunity from liability is clearly limited to that period of possession between the acquisition and recording of the tax sale certificate and entry of the final decree in the foreclosure … continues until the City has restored the property to the tax rolls; that "The *39 facts establish that there was no physical change with respect to the operation of the property by the City.

Blazer Corp. v. NJ Sports & Exposition Auth.

195 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1984

Second, if it were said to apply to "public entities" then not only public authorities, but also every county and municipality with the power to sue and be sued would be excluded, clearly an absured result and an unreasonable … As a matter of logic, if passage of time cannot be considered in defense, as plaintiff asserts, the defense of laches could not have been established, since time is an essential element of that defense.

State v. Scientific Coating Co.

228 N.J. Super. 320 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1988

N.J.S.A. 18A:72A-4a states that the New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, "shall constitute a political subdivision of the state established as an instrumentality exercising public and essential government functions … The Supreme Court has stated, "[o]rdinarily the federal and state governments are immune from the operation of general statutes of limitations....

Bundy v. Sinopoli

243 N.J. Super. 563 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 1990

It is an integral part of the utilization review plan required in order to *569 qualify under the Social Security Act and thus participate in federal and state funded programs. (Citations omitted.) … Obviously, it is impossible for the plaintiff to establish a particularized need for materials the content of which she has no knowledge.

Southern Jersey Family Medical Centers, Inc. v. City of Pleasantville

351 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 2002

We do immunizations for children. If you are sick we take care of you." … We recognize that a decision of the Tax Court should not be disturbed unless its findings are clearly arbitrary or not grounded in substantial evidence. Van Wingerden v.

S v. v. Rwj Barnabas Health, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 2025

She clearly was decompensated, required hospitalization. Upon discharge, that baseline was not achieved. .... Q. … Relatedly, the motions also sought dismissal of all defendants due to the failure of plaintiff to establish a causal link between any professional negligence and the crash.

Boyd v. Conrail

291 N.J. Super. 608 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1996

There's evidence — or there's case law from other states that clearly indicate that there's no particular duty to provide a watchman. … Conrail was clearly on notice that persons constantly and persistently intruded upon a particular area within the land.

Grant W. Morgan v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2016

The main and novel legal issue presented to us is whether the qualified immunity from civil liability granted to funeral directors under N.J.S.A. 45:7-95 and N.J.S.A. 45:27-22(d) extends to interns who are employed by funeral … We conclude that the statutory immunity does extend to such interns. The trial judge consequently did not err in charging the elements of the immunity to the jury. 10/21/15 CAROL JACOBY VS.