Case law

McCarthy v. NAT. ASSOC. FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING

87 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1965

The question for determination is whether the defendants as releasees have validly immunized themselves against liability for an alleged act of negligence committed after the execution of general releases. … Statutes have been passed from time to time establishing certain standards of conduct to prevent damages and consequent *448 injury. In Evers v.

Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n v. East Brunswick Tp.

180 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1981

Additionally, the establishment of two separate lists for qualified male and female candidates did not constitute an unlawful or discriminatory practice contrary to N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 and N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). … The testing procedures established by the township in 1980 as a result of the complaint filed by the Division of Civil Rights achieved an important governmental objective — the establishment of a larger pool of qualified,

Dilger v. Dilger

242 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1990

The testimony at the plenary hearing in December 1989 established that defendant had been employed by the New York Stock Exchange for nearly 20 years. … Nevertheless when retirement is accompanied by a precipitous loss of income, a modification is clearly warranted." Hymerling, "Commentary on Lepis v.

Santos v. Standard Havens, Inc.

225 N.J. Super. 16 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1988

The record submitted on appeal establishes that Riverdale, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hess Brothers, Inc. … Such protection was legislated as a quid pro quo — strict liability in Workers' Compensation in exchange for immunity from common law liability for negligence.

MARY RICHTER VS. OAKLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-0742-15, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 2019

Citing Victor, the Court ruled: To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) "qualifies as an individual with a disability … Clearly, actions that affect wages, benefits, or result in direct economic harm qualify.

State v. Williams

65 N.J. Super. 518 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 1961

He did not qualify as an expert on the value of the unit as a going gasoline station business. … Clearly, it was within the discretion of the trial judge to conclude that the particular expertise of Dierolf, though perhaps insufficient to qualify him as an expert in real estate values generally, could be considered to

BERNICE PISACK, ETC. VS. B&C TOWING, INC. VS. THE CITY OF NEWARK EPTISAM PELLEGRINO, ETC. VS. NICK'S TOWING SERVICE, INC., A-5668-16T3 CHRISTOPHER WALKER, ETC. VS. ALL POINTS AUTOMOTIVE & TOWING, INC. (L-6501-13, L-1606-17 AND L-7929-13, MIDDLESEX AND BERGEN COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2018

A plaintiff bringing a claim under the TCCWNA must establish that he or she is an "aggrieved consumer," and the defendant violated a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility." … Charges not permitted by the Towing Act violate a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility."

State v. Cullen

103 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 1968

However, once it was established that O'Brien intended to claim his privilege of immunity, the court committed error prejudicial to the defendant in permitting the prosecutor to continue his line of questioning, which placed … The questions asked of O'Brien, if answered, clearly bore on a fundamental part of the State's case against defendant and formed a crucial link in the proof.

In Re Darcy

114 N.J. Super. 454 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1971

It was held that the doctrine of res judicata was clearly not applicable. See Helvering v. … In this case the witness Lynch, a co-worker of Darcy, was qualified to identify Darcy's signature.

Henderson v. New Jersey Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors

85 N.J. Super. 509 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1964

of the Board that he has the educational background and experience to qualify to take such examination. … The latter section, providing for licensing without examination, is clearly an exception to the general provision of N. J. S. A. 45 :5A-9, which requires an examination.

Wasserman v. Schwartz

364 N.J. Super. 399 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 2001

Here, Stephen Schwartz has failed to establish that *836 any of the assets specified in the Bishop report as includible in the marital estate, or the monies held by his criminal defense attorney and his bank, are immune from … The Court in Painter also held that any incremental value to such property also enjoys a like immunity. Id.

M.R. v. Smolar Group, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 2024

POINT V BECAUSE [PLAINTIFF]'S LIBERTY RIGHT IN CONTINUING AS AN RCRP RECIPIENT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF HER RETURN TO STATE PRISON, SESSOMES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF … "The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Textar Painting Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority

296 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1996

Clearly, the policy of both states is complementary and thus, open competitive bidding is applicable. … Courts can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy.

Madej v. Doe

194 N.J. Super. 580 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1984

In response to the Supreme Court's abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity from tort liability in Willis v. Cons. & Ec. Dev. … That case deals with the tendency of the courts to permit a plaintiff to have his case heard on the merits once it has been clearly established that the court has jurisdiction.

Leider v. Pitock

15 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1951

it, or unless it is clearly shown to be erroneous in matter of law. … While this might properly affect the weight accorded his opinion by the trial court, it would not affect his competency as an expert witness, properly and factually established.

Loigman v. Trombadore

228 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1988

Article VIII, Section 6(a) of the Associations' bylaws establishes as one of the standing committees, the Judicial and County Prosecutor Appointments Committee. … The only reservation in this agreed confidentiality is when and if the Governor nominates one whom the Committee concludes is not qualified.

Seiden v. Marina Associates

315 N.J. Super. 451 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1998

handicapped or any unlawful employment practice against such person, unless the nature and extent of the handicap reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment. [ N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1] Unless it can be clearly … Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, a jury could clearly find plaintiff was handicapped as defined in the LAD as required to satisfy the first prong of the test. [2] As to the second prong of the test,

Schwarz v. Port Authority Transit Corp.

305 N.J. Super. 581 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1997

Moreover, the purpose of the surveillance camera was primarily to thwart fare-beaters at the turnstiles, and not to establish an area where PATCO intended to be alert to possible assaults on patrons. … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties____ [Id. at 363, 523 A.2d at 1124 .] More to the point, in Johnson v.

McGrogan v. Till

327 N.J. Super. 595 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 2000

We are persuaded that the consequences of Till's alleged malpractice qualify as personal injuries. They include elements of emotional harm, stress, anxiety, embarrassment, and impairment of personal relationships. … We also note that an attempt to establish an easy, bright-line test for determining the accrual of the statute of limitations by requiring exoneration fails in its application.

Paz v. DeSimone

139 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1976

The testimony of both parties clearly establishes that while defendants DeSimone had ownership and possession, the land was used only for farming and for no other purpose, thereby qualifying for the tax benefit. … In the instant case the testimony clearly indicates that there was in fact no collateral agreement between seller and buyer for the seller to pay roll-back taxes, and that the seller had maintained his land as a farm qualifying