Case law

Melick v. Township of Oxford

294 N.J. Super. 386 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1996

Applying these principles here, in our view, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that Melick established a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. … Clearly, the LAD is broad and pervasive.

Af v. Dlp

339 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 2001

However, the Court clearly announced that "the standard we enunciate is applicable to all persons who have willingly, and with the approval of the [biological or adoptive] parent, undertaken the duties of a parent to a child … Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status.

Lone v. Brown

199 N.J. Super. 420 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1985

Even though New Jersey recognizes slander of title as a viable cause of action, the question presented is whether defendant enjoys immunity. … Clearly, pleadings, such as the complaint filed herein, are regarded as part of the judicial proceedings. Genito v. Rabinowitz, 93 N.J. Super. 225, 229 (App.Div. 1966).

Watford v. UNSAT. CLAIM & JUDGMENT FD. BD.

113 N.J. Super. 495 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1971

In the case at bar an examination of the communications by the attorney *504 for the uninsured motorist and the language of the complaint that was sent to the Fund, indicate quite clearly that substantially all of the information … It is but a short step from destroying the sovereign immunity of the State to the detriment of its citizens to judicial incursion into the Fund's cacoon of claimed immunity.

Lionel Corp. v. Grayson-Robinson Stores

27 N.J. Super. 54 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1953

It purports to include nonsigners within the immunity granted by the Miller-Tydings Act. … Competition, whether desirable or not, must be lawful, as is clearly indicated by the many laws which give redress when it is unlawful. Suppression of competition is incompatible with the precepts of a free society.

LONG BRANCH DIVISION, ETC. v. Cowan

119 N.J. Super. 306 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 1972

However, such immunity is not completely unbridled; it must be exercised in a reasonable fashion so as not to arbitrarily override all important legitimate local interest. Rutgers v. Piluso, supra, at 153. … Although the complaint does not specifically charge that the Department acted unreasonably or arbitrarily, the above-quoted language clearly implies such conduct and sets forth a colorable claim thereof.

State v. Parris

175 N.J. Super. 603 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1980

Here defendant clearly should have been aware of the defense before trial because his two acquitted codefendants had been tried under the same indictment. … Rather, it is established that in the view of the trial judge the evidence presented was not adequate to support a conviction of either of them. R. 3:18-1.

State v. Gora

148 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1977

A. 2A:81-17.2a2, which conferred a self-executing use and fruits immunity upon him. We disagree. … A. 2A:81-17.2a2 granted him, as a public employee, automatic use immunity in exchange for his grand jury testimony, and therefore he was immune from prosecution in any criminal proceeding based upon that testimony or evidence

Southland Corp. v. Edison Tp.

217 N.J. Super. 158 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1986

Southland also presented the expert testimony of Wayman Crow, Ph.D., who was qualified as an expert in the fields of the psychology of robbery, robbery deterrence and violence prevention. Dr. … Plaintiff Southland's evidence clearly establishes the absence of such a compelling public need. Thus the court must conclude that the ordinance is unenforceable as to Southland and establishments within its class.

Moore v. Bd. of Trustees

382 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2006

The issue issue presented by this appeal is whether a psychic stimulus occurring in the course of public employment may constitute a "traumatic event" that would establish eligibility for an accidental disability pension. … It is unclear whether the ALJ deferred this issue, as well as the issue of "delayed manifestation," for future consideration if appellant was able to establish he had experienced a traumatic event or events.

State v. Monturi

195 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1984

the question of whether a second "death qualified" jury need be empaneled. … The word "are", used in the introductory sentence of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4), is clearly a limiting term.

Underwood v. Atlantic City Racing Ass'n

295 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 27, 1996

It was his opinion that "the shadow immediately adjacent to the rail is clearly visible on the videotape and was a contributing factor in the accident of Sidney Underwood, as it appears that the horse ... did not wish to … "Prior decisions on legal issues should be followed unless there is substantially different evidence at a subsequent trial, new controlling authority, or the prior decision was clearly erroneous."

Ormond Simpkins, Jr. v. South Orange-Maplewood School District

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 2024

A-2181-21 13 immunity once a ground is established for the employer's vicarious liability under 59:2-2(a)."). … The 1972 Attorney General's Task Force Comment to N.J.S.A. 59:2-1 explains the Act re-established the "immunity of all governmental bodies in New Jersey" following its abrogation in Willis v.

C.W. v. Roselle Board of Education

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 2026

Clearly, the parties and courts properly adhered to the statute enacted more than fifty years ago. … The Legislature also narrowed the scope of A-2236-23 18 substantive immunity under the TCA, so that immunity

Franklin Estates, Inc. v. Tp. of Edison

142 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1976

Clearly the reasons given initially for rejection should be the same as those ultimately relied upon in order to permit the taxpayer to concentrate his efforts on proving his entitlement. … Here the taxpayer was offered full opportunity to establish compliance with mandatory statutory criteria as to the amount of land being farmed and the income derived therefrom.

Wynfield Corp. v. Killam Associates

385 N.J. Super. 20 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2006

Thus, in Neelthak, we declined to “posit a cause of action such as plaintiffs assert against staff employees or contractors independent of the immunities preserved by the Tort Claims Act,” especially where the law required … Defendant further contends that, contrary to the trial judge’s ruling, secretarial charges clearly qualified as out-of-pocket expenses for which separate billing was otherwise permitted under the statute.

Helduser v. Kimmelman

191 N.J. Super. 493 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 1983

Clearly, these provisions are' appropriate to civil *505 actions, not criminal actions. … Clearly, the focus was upon the need to defend and indemnify state employees against civil liability for damages.

Pino v. Board of Trustees

309 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1998

To qualify as a traumatic event the applicant for accidental disability retirement must establish that the “source of the injury itself was a great rush of force or uncontrollable power.” … the agency follow the law; (2) whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly

In re Dykas

261 N.J. Super. 626 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 29, 1993

In a submission to the Board, the DMV asserted its wish to waive the one-year limitation, but indicated that it was uncertain whether the type of injury suffered by petitioner qualified for the benefit sought. … Without any evidence to countervail the clearly expressed opinions of Dr. Moskowitz, the Board’s finding that petitioner did not come within established criteria was without adequate basis.

Restivo v. Church of Saint Joseph of Palisades

306 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 1997

For example, if a church owned an abutting property used for a restaurant or hotel, the church in that instance would clearly be a commercial landowner.'... … Defendants already enjoy the substantial immunities created by the Legislature in the Charitable Immunity Act.