Case law

West Milford Tp. v. Garfield Recreation Comm.

194 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 1983

N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.68 clearly established the procedure for implementing the Green Acres tax exemption by providing: The tax exemption established by this act shall be granted or revoked pursuant to the provisions of [ N.J.S.A … It clearly appears as such that the certification by DEP is merely advisory and not a final determination of tax exemption.

Jari Almonte v. Township of Union

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 18, 2024

paramedic who acted negligently is entitled to qualified immunity, if he acted with subjective good faith or in a reasonably objective manner. … Plaintiffs argue that we should interpret the qualified immunity for advanced life support paramedics under N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14 more narrowly than we interpreted the Tort Claims Act immunity in Frields and Murray.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority

340 N.J. Super. 166 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 2001

Therefore, the Commissioner did not err by failing to recognize that Bayshore is immune from the WPCA and DEP regulation. This argument is without merit. … Bayshore clearly falls within the purview of the WPCA because it is both a “municipal treatment works” and a “local agency.” N.J.S.A. 58:10A-3. Moreover, as a NJDEPS permit holder, Bay-shore is subject to the WPCA.

State v. Mazur

158 N.J. Super. 89 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1978

Swidler was not in a condition to be aborted in no way negates their clearly manifested intent to commit a criminal act. … The judge added that he knew from "the prior trial" that no immunity was granted to Cohn with respect to potential welfare fraud charges.

Sudler v. Environ. Disposal Corp.

219 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1987

The two Antitrust Act claims are also barred by statutory immunity. In Zoneraich v. Overlook Hosp., 212 N.J. Super. 83, 93 (App. … The immunity protection therefore covers Hills as well as EDC. Sudler's remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The decision of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners is affirmed.

Hyland v. Simmons

152 N.J. Super. 569 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 1977

The above authorities establish clearly that the instant cause of action is independent from any past criminal proceeding against defendant, regardless of its outcome. … It is well established that since this is a purely equitable action, [2] the general statute of limitations is not applicable. Colton v. Depew, 60 N.J. Eq. 454, 458-459 (E. & A. 1900).

Cureton v. Eley

294 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 1996

A claimant under the UCJF must establish that he is a qualified person. … A qualified victim of a hit-and-run driver must meet the criteria established in N.J.S.A. 39:6-78.

WINBERRY REALTY PARTNERSHIP VS. BOROUGH OF RUTHERFORD (L-7126-10, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2019

"Qualified immunity is a doctrine that shields government officials from a suit for civil damages when 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Moreover, there is no presumption of qualified immunity; rather, the immunity is considered "an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish." Schneider v. Simonini, 163 N.J. 336, 354 (2000).

Spilker v. WILLIAM PENN LIFE INS.

251 N.J. Super. 480 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 1991

In this appeal we are called upon to review the motion judge's interpretation of life insurance incontestability established by N.J.S.A. 17B:25-4. … While Formosa clearly stated insurance policies remain contestable when the insured does not survive the two year period, that issue was not directly before the court.

State v. Jordan

197 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1984

We do this even though the verdicts were amply supported by the evidence for the very serious trial errors in this matter were clearly capable of producing an unjust result and indeed made convictions particularly of one … But prior cases indicated that a judge does not have power to grant use immunity. Rather the procedure for a witness to obtain such immunity is statutory.

TORA EVANS VS. DAVID PETRACCA (L-3092-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2020

We turn first to plaintiff's civil rights claim and the application of qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. State

210 N.J. Super. 611 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 1985

Privileges and Immunities The Private Truck plaintiffs also allege that the Counterpart Fee Act, N.J.S.A. 39:3-6, violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. … The Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits a state from discriminating against nonresidents with respect to privileges and immunities which bear upon the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Baldwin v.

CHARLES WRIGHT VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (L-0433-15, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

456 N.J. Super. 328 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2018

A-2358-15T3 3 Spade, 232 N.J. at 521. 2 TCCWNA may be triggered by a departure from any "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility." N.J.S.A. 56:12-15. … The Court – reasoning from TCCWNA's declaration that an aggrieved consumer may seek actual damages or the statutory penalty – provision that violates any clearly established legal right of a consumer or responsibility

New Jersey District Kiwanis International v. Gandhi

284 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1994

The Kiwanis sponsored Key Club qualifies for inclusion in this category. … Defendant now believes he is immunized from responsibility because an unenforceable contract exists between his fourteen year old son and plaintiff. Defendant is mistaken.

State v. State Troopers NCO Ass'n of New Jersey, Inc.

179 N.J. Super. 80 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1981

The arbitrator based his decision on the fact that section A of NCO’s proposal clearly gave the Division the sole authority to establish the criteria to be used in evaluating candidates for promotion. … qualified,” the proposal was procedural in nature and did not bear on criteria for promotion.

State v. Ingram

226 N.J. Super. 680 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1988

The State cited 42 U.S.C.A. § 6961 (a section of the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act) as establishing in clear and unambiguous language the waiver of sovereign immunity by the United States and thus, vesting in the State … The testimony, including all reasonable inferences, establishes the abandonment or disposal on the property but does not establish the location with any specificity.

Solid Rock Baptist Church v. Carlton

347 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2002

[A]nd that is contrary to th[e] clear spirit of this entire document which in my opinion clearly vests ultimate authority in the church. … Intervenors, on the other hand, would allow any member "qualified" to vote to place in nomination any "eligible" (i.e., qualified) person neither nominated nor "listed" by the nominating committee.

State of New Jersey v. George A. Myers

442 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 8, 2015

"Thus, appellate courts should reverse only when the trial court's determination is so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction." … Instead, defendant argues the well-established New Jersey precedent allowing the odor of marijuana to establish probable cause is no longer good law after the CUMMA.

Wadlow v. Wadlow

200 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1985

The record clearly supports the trial judge's finding that the account was established by plaintiff's parents and managed solely by her father. … It was segregated throughout the marriage and clearly was never intended to benefit the defendant. The value of plaintiff's interest in the account was, thus, immune from distribution. Cf. Painter v.

State v. Kaniper

180 N.J. Super. 573 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1981

Defendant initially argues for immunity from prosecution, claiming his gun is an antique firearm. Undoubtedly, this Smith & Wesson revolver meets the statutory test of an antique. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-l(a). … This provision clearly represents an inconsistency with and therefore a break from the prior law. See N.J.S.A. 2C:l-l(e).