Case law

Feit v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield

385 N.J. Super. 470 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 2006

They are entitled to immunity if they acted in good faith and without malice. … Billington, [ 291 N.J.Super. 382 , 677 A.2d *482 771 (App.Div.1996) ] provides that doctors are public figures, and therefore, they must show malice in order for, to establish defamation.

Catton v. Ins. Underwriting Ass'n

242 N.J. Super. 5 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1990

Clearly, the legislative statement and the statutory provision when read together place the burden on the JUA, through its servicing carriers, to ascertain whether the applicant meets the qualifying provisions of the statute … Thus, it is firmly established that insurers must deal with applicants as laymen and not as experts in the ever changing law of underwriting. Id. Moreover, in Merchants Indem. Corp. v.

In Re Tp. of Parsippany-Troy Hills

419 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 5, 2011

PERC decided that this particular detailed medical provider form, clearly intended for FMLA leave, could not be required whenever an employee requested extended sick leave. … The Township does have the managerial prerogative to require sick leave verification pursuant to its established policy.

Miller v. Muscarelle

67 N.J. Super. 305 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1961

This was to sustain plaintiff's burden of establishing a failure by defendants to conform with a standard of reasonable care in the use of the conveyor. … Clearly he did not "direct" the use of the conveyor in the particular manner it was being used on this occasion.

Cheyenne Corp. v. Township of Byram

248 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1991

In order to qualify, the owner must establish that (1) the property consists of at least five acres, and (2) he derives a minimum average income of $500 for the first five acres and $.50 for each additional acre during the … The Township's remaining contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

State v. J.F.

262 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1993

Accordingly, the issue raised by defendant concerning the parole disqualifier is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Such an order would clearly be one banishing defendant from the State; and its validity would be a question of first impression in New Jersey.

SAYEED AL SHEHAB VS. NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP. (L-5277-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2017

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right asserted by plaintiff was not clearly established. … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity so long as New Jersey law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful under the circumstances. Brown, supra, 230 N.J. at 106.

Reck v. Director, Div. of Taxation

345 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2001

qualify under section 401(k). … To the extent that plaintiffs seek to establish a deduction from taxable gross income, they have the burden of establishing a clear statutory basis therefor. See Amerada Hess Corp. v.

State v. Matos

273 N.J. Super. 6 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1994

Defendant's assertion of unfairness is clearly without merit. … Clearly, the hearing was held solely for the purpose of determining whether defendant were going to testify at Alvarez's trial sometime in the future.

State v. Miller

64 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1960

The State says, in its answering brief, that "the opinion of the court below clearly establishes that the basis of its *265 finding of guilty rested upon `very heavy testimony of the people who observed' defendant rather … He hasn't been qualified, and there is no evidence as to how he arrived at the result, except that the result was .21. The Court: I'll deny your motion." *267 The State contends that these objections came too late.

State v. Furey

128 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1974

Super. 515 (Law Div. 1967), is clearly misplaced and neither provides any support for defendant's argument. … While Viscomi was not indicted, and testified for the State under a grant of immunity, nevertheless, he was named in the indictment as a co-conspirator, and the evidence established that he was involved with defendant and

Ahammed v. Logandro

394 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2007

Evringham's March 22, 2006 deposition testimony establishing plaintiff's and defendant's co-employee status followed. … This is particularly true because the uncontradicted deposition testimony of Evringham clearly establishes (1) that neither man was an independent contractor but each was a W-2 wage earning employee of Domino's and (2) that

Huster v. Huster

64 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 22, 1960

What defendant obviously was trying to establish through Dr. … Moreover, there is a real question as to whether he was qualified to do so.

Scheck v. Houdaille Const. Materials, Inc.

121 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1972

In setting up the protections provided for in the 1962 statute the Legislature clearly intended it to apply solely to wooded properties and farmlands. … Super. at 346 ] Defendant calls to our notice "the established principle of finality of judgments," and cites to us the eloquent *344 opinion of Judge Fritz in Bauer v. Griffin, 104 N.J.

State v. Wanczyk

196 N.J. Super. 397 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1984

adopted the Rules of Evidence, but also by virtue of the fact that the Rule permits an expert to give his opinion based on matters that are not in evidence such as his own observations or hearsay. [3] The Rule, therefore, clearly … Second, the handler, once qualified as an expert, must give testimony regarding the particular dog that he used and the facts.

Angelo v. Shapiro

168 N.J. Super. 459 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 1979

Clearly, the Charter Act is not intended to modify such things as the laws of contracts or torts or civil service laws (N. J. 8. A. 40:41A-129). … A. 40:41A-26, already outlined, indicates that the Charter Act empowers a county to eliminate agencies with ancient and well-established organizations.

JW Field Co., Inc. v. Franklin Tp.

204 N.J. Super. 445 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 3, 1985

The court must deny a builder's remedy if the municipality "establishes that because of environmental or other substantial planning concerns, the plaintiff's proposed project is clearly contrary to sound land use planning … Is any project clearly more likely to result in actual construction than other projects? b. Is any project clearly more suitable from a planning viewpoint than others? Step Four.

Patel v. Soriano

369 N.J. Super. 192 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2004

With respect to plaintiff's antitrust claims, the judge found that IGH was immune from such liability under N.J.S.A. 56:9-5(b)(5). … He clearly had suffered both personal and professional humiliation and had been deprived of the "blessing" of patient care.

Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Etc. v. State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 2025

to "qualified immunity." … constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity."

Harris v. Middlesex County College

353 N.J. Super. 31 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2002

HARRIS' CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, PRIOR TO DISCOVERY AND THE PREPARATION OF EXPERT REPORTS, AND IN THE FACE OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT CLEARLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TORT IN ESTABLISHED CASE LAW, … DCR argues: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REQUIRING APPELLANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SHE SUFFERED FROM A SEVERE OR SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING CONDITION IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS "HANDICAPPED" AND ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF DISABILITY