Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.55s
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 2020
In light of that relationship, the judge deemed himself "not persuaded" that the Division had clearly and convincingly established that termination of defendant's parental rights would not do more harm than good. … Because we were not convinced the record clearly and convincingly established that severing the child's bond with her biological parent would not harm her, and we doubted that the resource parents would "disappear" if
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDcpp v. M.N., J.L.K. and W.L., in the Matter of W.N.-l. and I.N.-k.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2024
And also, because clearly all . . . that [Wanda] has been through with her mom has caused her to be emotionally distressed." … Our point is that the Division was required to establish it, not assume it.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTWAN J. HORTON (10-12-1199, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 2019
The evidence indicating that defendant was seeking to find out who had broken into his home, and stolen from him, is clearly relev ant to such motive." … Moreover, the persistent offender statute does not require that a qualifying defendant's prior crimes be violent. State v. Bauman, 298 N.J. Super. 176, 211 (App. Div. 1997).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 2019
The motion court properly found the lathe did not qualify as "merchandise" under the CFA when dismissing Specialty Lighting's CFA claims. II. … The motion court concluded the provision was clearly legible, was not unconscionable, and was reasonable.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedLEONARD KESSELMAN v. SIDNEY KESSELMAN (C-000184-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 2022
The Trust, and Evelyn and Sidney's Deaths A week prior to the October 13, 1997 letter discussed above, Sidney and Evelyn established the Family Trust. … It prevents a party from relitigating any issue clearly raised in a prior action and decided against that party, whether the tribunals or the causes of action are the same. Simmons, 37 N.Y.3d at 112; Winters v. N.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAELITO PALAO (14-03-0185, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 2020
D'Urso's educational background to establish the witness' specialized knowledge under N.J.R.E. 702. Dr. … Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971))[,] and therefore was clearly capable of producing an unjust result as to R.P., C.P., and C.K.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedWatford Specialty Insurance Company v. Mdf 92 River Street, LLC
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 2023
Since Mucha was "clearly occupying the premises" at the time of the incident, he claimed he should be covered under the Policy's wrongful eviction provision. … Mucha notes the court here correctly held that there must be a "possessory interest" or "an existing right of private occupancy" to qualify for coverage under the Wrongful Eviction provision.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 2021
Hence, as the McGinnis judge correctly found, neither portion of Section 5 provides defendants with immunity from punitive damages here. III. … A-5151-17 101 Thus, the record amply establishes that Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDcpp v. J.L.C. and L.T., in the Matter of the Guardianship of E.J.C. and L.J.T.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2023
"To satisfy the fourth prong, the State should offer testimony of a well[]qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation of the child's relationship with both the … A trial judge's ruling to exclude evidence is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard; such a decision is only reversed if the decision is clearly erroneous. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Perm. v. N.T., 445 N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2020
Notably, in this letter Fournier Trucking's attorneys once more referred to the employees of the carriers, arguing that they would not qualify as employees of Fournier Trucking. … A company can choose to use its own workers to carry out its responsibilities, or it can retain independent companies who may also qualify as subcontractors to discharge some of those tasks.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 2019
With one exception, the prior referrals were ruled "unfounded" or "not established." See N.J.A.C. 3A:10-7.3. However, in 2015, when K.M.R.- S.' … Turning to prong two, the judge found that "[t]he Division ha[d] shown clearly and convincingly" that defendants were "unwilling or unable to limit the harm facing [the children]."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedJOHN DUTCHER VS. PEDRO PEDEIRO(L-4321-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 22, 2017
The DEP's consideration of these four factors did not qualify as rulemaking. See Metromedia, supra, 97 N.J. at 331-32. … They contend that the area's "actual use" as recreational space for decades established the public use required by the rule.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES E. GRANT (12-09-0849, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2017
This testimony clearly was prejudicial. The statements by D.C.'s mother indicated that defendant had confessed, was to be feared, and was violent. … s mother's testimony should be ignored entirely, this direction at the same time was qualified.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedDivyajit Mehta v. Emanuel Hedvat
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 2025
Fariba was substituted for Emanuel as the buyer so that the business could qualify as a woman-owned business enterprise. … The court's factual findings were not so "clearly mistaken" or "wide of the mark" to require the panel to interfere to prevent a denial of justice. See N.J. Div. of Youth & Fam. Servs. v.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL SAMPSON (13-01-0098, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 2019
Clearly, there is sufficient overlap between the charges. … To be fair, it might similarly be argued that the other offenses could be clearly and convincingly established because the jury found defendant committed those offenses beyond reasonable doubt.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIN RE: ACCUTANE LITIGATION (MCL CASE NO. 271, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2017
Again, it may be adequate, but it clearly is a jury question. To be sure, defendants' arguments are colorable. … Here, plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that the warnings did not clearly or repeatedly warn of the causal and latency effect.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2017
Brown was qualified as an expert in clinical neuropsychology. Dr. Brown's methodology was similar to Dr. … "Despite such circumstances, deference will still be accorded to the trial judge's findings unless it is determined that they went so wide of the mark that the judge was clearly mistaken."
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2017
As for prong three, the record clearly supports the court's determination that the Division made diligent efforts to provide services for the parents. … Generally, "the [Division] should offer testimony of a 'well qualified expert who has had full opportunity to make a comprehensive, objective, and informed evaluation' of the child's relationship with both the natural
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2022
The judge concluded the Division had established the family was in need of services under Title 30. … That position could result in the parents being stripped of the right to raise their child based on incompetent evidence, a result clearly incompatible with statute and case law. See id. at 265.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCatic Title Insurance Company, Etc. v. Richard Cecere
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2024
Because of her age, Rosemarie did not meet the minimum age requirement to qualify for a reverse mortgage herself. … An abuse of discretion occurs "when a decision is 'made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" Flagg v. Essex Cnty.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished
Ask Donna