Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
1.30s
HIGHLAND PARK BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. KIMBERLY HARRINGTON (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2019
Clearly there is more than enough room for any East Brunswick residents if they choose to attend the Charter School. … As explained below, they clearly are.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRHONDA HELLER VS. WILLIAM HELLER, JR. (FM-03-1262-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 2019
PER CURIAM Plaintiff Rhonda Heller appeals from the Family Part's April 12, 2017 order that incorporated the terms of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). We affirm. … The court's December 2, 2016 order was final, as the only outstanding issue related to defendant's entitlement to obtain documents to finalize the QDRO, an obligation established in the PSA.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJersey City Municipal Utilities Authority v. Town of Dover
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2025
Such replacement shall be made with like-kind upon the end of a life cycle as defined by the manufacturer/builder, or by a qualified expert when no such life cycle is defined by the manufacturer and/or builder, and which … The court's exercise of discretion "must be neither arbitrary, vague nor fanciful and must be in consonance with well[-]established principles of law[;] . . .
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 2019
However, the Court's guidance in R.D. clearly prohibits the ruling defendant seeks. … We will not overturn a family court's findings unless they were "so wide of the mark that the judge was clearly mistaken."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 23, 2021
Plaintiff asserts that because Ruble "was [forty-six] years old and had been [c]orporate [c]ounsel for [Apexel] since 2006," "the inference arises as to Ruble's loss of memory" that "clearly . . . … Moreover, the court found "plaintiff [did] not identify any grounds that would qualify for the [c]ourt to reconsider, nothing palpably incorrect.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJustin Cherry v. Tuckerton Borough Police Department
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2023
The trial court concluded: Clearly, for whatever reason, Officer Cherry was not truthful in completing his report of this incident. … through 4 must be dismissed; (2) the TPD pursuit policy only prohibits the pursuit of a stolen vehicle in certain circumstances, warranting dismissal of charges 1 through 4; (3) the accident reconstruction expert was not qualified
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE M. CORTES (15-05-1578, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2019
In light of our analysis, we discern no harmful error rising to a level indicative of a mistake "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10- 2. … Both of these crimes are eligible to qualify defendant as predicate offenses for the "certain persons" weapons conviction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CALIER SAMAD (14-11-1339, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 2021
The State explained that it "made no secret of its strategy of obtaining either Foreman's cooperation or immunity for his testimony" at Samad's trial. The State did not address Foreman's recantation. … More importantly, Foreman testified at trial, where he established clearly that the prosecutor's prediction was wrong.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedState of New Jersey v. Christopher R. small/state of New Jersey v. Christopher M. Verity
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2023
Our Supreme Court has explained "[n]o criminal intent to cause death is required to establish culpability. … The Court conditioned the testimony on whether the witness was "a truly independent and qualified reviewer of the underlying data and report" and did not "merely parrot the findings of another." Id. at 79.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 2017
the child tested positive for PCP at birth, she was never given the opportunity to care for daughter, and therefore the Division could not assess the harm to Barbara "to protect [her] from a wide range of conduct that clearly … qualifies as neglect."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAKEEM JOHNSON (16-09-2775, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 2021
Detective Christopher Dirocco was qualified as an expert witness in fingerprint and palm print identification. … Defendant has not established that the State permitted Dutton to commit perjury during his testimony. Affirmed.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDcpp v. S.p-s. and S.A., in the Matter of N.S.A.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 2025
Our circumscribed standard of review of the Family Part's fact-finding determination is well established. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. R.D., 207 N.J. 88, 112 (2011). … We intervene only "if the trial court's conclusions are 'clearly mistaken or wide of the mark.'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v. L.L., 201 N.J. 210, 227 (2010) (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 10, 2019
Defendant argues the Division failed to establish the required elements to succeed in a termination proceeding. … We will not overturn a family court's findings unless they were "so wide of the mark that the judge was clearly mistaken." G.L., 191 N.J. at 605.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 2020
The court found Gilmore "qualified to render opinion testimony" on identifying drug traffickers. … A-1072-19T3 24 Under the totality of the circumstances, there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to establish that, from the time of the traffic stop until the time
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2017
A check with the baby's doctor revealed she had been seen nine times in her eleven months, only once for a sick visit, and was up to date with her immunizations. Dr. … Although the Court in G.S. noted the difference between negligence and willful and wanton conduct cannot be clearly delineated in all cases, it made clear that [w]here an ordinary reasonable person would
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 1, 2021
The judge clearly understood what the Division's burden of proof was and said so. … [she] was clearly committed to her daughters and complied with services."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 26, 2019
The additional proof calls into serious question whether defendants' guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances were "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. … Segal was qualified as an expert witness in forensic pathology and wound ballistics.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ZARIK ROSE (06-04-0377, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2019
The request must be made "clearly and unequivocally." … Although the right to self-representation may be waived by conduct, the conduct must clearly establish that the defendant intentionally relinquished a known right.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROSA M. CALLE (17-01-0290, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2019
Because the "aggravating factors outweigh[ed] the listed mitigating factors," the prosecutor determined defendant did not qualify for admission into the PTI program. … A defendant seeking to overrule a prosecutor's rejection of a PTI application must "clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into the program was based on a patent and gross
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJ. JOSEPHSON v. Crum & Forster
293 N.J. Super. 170 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 1996
Supp. 342, 348-49 (E.D.Pa. 1987), the courts found that the respective policies' pollution exclusion clauses applied because the pollution took place over a long period and thus could not qualify for the exclusion's exception … Rptr. 2d 101, 108-09 (1995) (groundwater contamination by gasoline leak not a covered personal injury as defined in the policy because it clearly fell within the pollution exclusion clause and to allow coverage defeated the
Cited 26 timesPublished
Ask Donna