Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

10,000+ results

2.07s

  • Crowell v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.

    206 N.J. Super. 298 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1984

    A like decision was made in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 548 (1972), in connection with a claimed property interest in the right to reemployment. … In Board of Regents , the court held: *301 Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution.

    Disapproved by DeVries v. McNeil Consumer Products Co., 250 N.J. Super. 159 (1991)Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Condrin Construction Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

    177 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1981

    in part, that “no action shall be brought against any of the sureties on the bond required by this article until the expiration of 80 days after the acceptance of the building, work or improvement by the duly authorized board … Newman v. Maryland Cas. Co., supra.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • State v. Silva

    394 N.J. Super. 270 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2007

    Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. … In State v.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Goerke v. Middletown Tp.

    85 N.J. Super. 519 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1964

    SPURDLE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLE-TOWN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN AND NEWTON A. … See Lynch v. Borough of Hillsdale, 136 N.J.L. 129, 133 ( Sup. Ct. 1947).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • State in Interest of DF

    138 N.J. Super. 383 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 3, 1975

    School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218 , 84 S.Ct. 1226 , 12 L.Ed. 2d 256 *393 (1964). Most recently, in Robinson v. … In Gault v. Board of Directors, 103 Ariz. 397 , 422 P. 2d 844 (1968), the Arizona Supreme Court overturned a commitment apparently made in derogation of the court-ordered placement.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Trainor v. City of Newark

    145 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1976

    Hulme v. Board of Comm'rs, 95 N.J.L. 30, 32 (Sup. Ct. 1920), aff'd 95 N.J.L. 545 (E. & A. 1920). It may be said that the duties of those enumerated in § 9-1 are also quite distinguishable from those of other employees. … Div. 1974), and DeVita v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • State v. Darby

    246 N.J. Super. 432 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1991

    See N.J.S.A. 1:1-6; 1:3-1; State v. Blinsinger, 114 N.J. Super. 318 , 276 A. 2d 182 (App.Div. 1971); State v. Brown, 188 N.J. … Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 228 (1980) (remand to determine if failure to reduce speed motor vehicle violation, disposed of prior to manslaughter prosecution, involves same "offense"); Brown v.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • In Re Disciplinary Proceedings in Tp. of Westampton Against Police Officer Baldinger

    220 N.J. Super. 267 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1987

    means the mayor, manager, or such other appropriate executive or administrative officer, such as a full time director of public safety, or the governing body or any designated committee or member thereof, or any municipal board … Grasso v. Glassboro, 205 N.J. Super. 18 (App.Div. 1985); Ferrari v. Melleby, 134 N.J. Super. 583 (App.Div. 1975); but see Gauntt v. Bridgeton, 194 N.J. Super. 468, 490 (App.Div. 1984).

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Randolph Tp. v. Lamprecht

    225 N.J. Super. 236 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 27, 1988

    This case is distinguishable from Rowatti v. Gonchar, supra . … The only question was one of use. [2] But see Rowatti v. Gonchar, 101 N.J. 46 , 54 n. 2 (1985), and State v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Zurcher v. Modern Plastic MacHinery Corp.

    24 N.J. Super. 158 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 1952

    Brown v. Dunn, 50 N.J.L. 111 ( Sup. Ct. 1887); Russell v. Fred G. Pohl Co., 7 N.J. 32, 41 (1951). … The foundation of the rule was the protection of the creditor against a double harassment. *163 Sloan v. Sommers, 14 N.J.L. 509 ( Sup. Ct. 1834); Otis v. Adams, 56 N.J.L. 38 ( S.C. 1893); Glaser v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • State v. Sessoms

    413 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 17, 2010

    State v. Covell, 157 N.J. 554, 564 , 725 A. 2d 675 (1999) (quoting State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 266 , 524 A. 2d 188 (1987)). … State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 147 , 784 A. 2d 1244 (2001) (citing State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484 , 691 A. 2d 293 (1997)).

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • DeRosa v. ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS

    420 N.J. Super. 438 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2011

    Accord NLRB v. … See Mulford v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • COURIER-POST v. County of Camden

    413 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2010

    See Gamrin v. … Chimes v.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Service Commercial Body Works v. Borough of Dumont

    5 N.J. Super. 327 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1949

    See Frank Stamato Co. v. Borough of Lodi, 4 N.J. Super. 505 , 509 ( App. Div. 1949); Potter v. Metuchen, 108 N.J.L. 447 , 452 ( Sup. Ct. 1931). … Car Spring Rubber Co. v. Jersey City, 64 N.J.L. 544 , 547 ( E. A. 1900).

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Mackenzie v. Regional Principals Ass'n

    377 N.J. Super. 252 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 6, 2004

    In short, there is no “leviathan-like governmental regulatory board” to monitor the parties’ negotiations. St. … See Maiuro v. Federal Express Corporation, 843 F.Supp. 935 (D.N.J.), af f'd, 43 F.3d 1461 (3d Cir.1994); Board of Trustees v. Weinstein, 107 F.3d 139 , 143 (2d.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Bianchi v. City of Newark

    53 N.J. Super. 66 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1958

    The long line of New Jersey decisions so holding is set out and discussed in De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Bergen, above, 21 N.J., at page 140 et seq.; and see Winne v. … Winne v. Bergen County , above, 21 N.J., at pages 315-316; De Marco v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Bergen, above, 21 N.J., at page 144.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • R. H. Macy & Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation

    77 N.J. Super. 155 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1962

    See Duke Power Co. v. Somerset Co. Board of Taxation, 124 N. J. L. 481 (Sup. Ct. 1940), affirmed 125 N. J. L. 431 (E. & A. 1940); Duke Power Co. v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 129 N. J. L. 449 (Sup. … Plainfield v. State Board of Tax Appeals, 126 N. J. L. 407, 408 (Sup. Ct. 1941).

    Cited 43 timesPublished
  • State v. Sanchez

    150 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1977

    A. 2A:164-16; State v. Braeunig, 140 N. J. Super. 245 (App. Div. 1976); State v. Pietrowski, 136 N. J. Super. 383 (App. Div. 1975); Bonilla v. Heil, 126 N. J. Super. 538 (App. Div. 1974). … The State Parole Board does not have exclusive jurisdiction under N. J. S. A. 30:4 — 123.5 over defendants on parole.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Gorrie v. Winters

    214 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 26, 1986

    Brown, Jr., attorney for respondents. The opinion of the court was delivered by D'ANNUNZIO, J.S.C., (temporarily assigned). … Doctorman v. Schroeder, 92 N.J. Eq. at 676 .

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • State v. Pasquale

    5 N.J. Super. 91 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1949

    Ct. 1859); State v. Tomlin, 29 Id. 13 ( Sup. Ct., 1860). … State v. Bromley, 5 N.J. Misc. 195 ( Sup. Ct. 1926); affirmed, 104 N.J.L. 186 ( E. A. 1927).

    Cited 1 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.