Case law

In Re Morgenthau

188 N.J. Super. 303 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1983

Both Jeannie Nash and Michelle El Gohail testified before that grand jury and *307 have thereby received full transactional immunity with respect to these homicides. … Accepting this premise, which is offered without cited authority, we are of the view that the existing rule and case authorities clearly support the jurisdiction of the trial court to act as it did in this instance.

State v. Tiernan

123 N.J. Super. 322 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1973

The State in the case sub judice has clearly failed to meet this requirement. … The aforementioned reasons clearly warrant a reversal of the Municipal Court conviction.

Citizens for Chart. Change, Essex Cty. v. Caputo

151 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 1977

This is so because, though they are clearly not qualified to vote ( N.J.S.A. 19:32-15), their elective voice would nevertheless be considered in determining the number of signatures required in order to place the referendum … The decision clearly *294 contemplated that no further challenges to signatures would occur.

Schofield v. ZONING BOARD OF ADJ. TP. OF DENNIS

169 N.J. Super. 150 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1979

We are clearly of the opinion that the trial judge erred. … Since the use was never valid, the Simmermans could not be deemed to have had a nonconforming *156 use immune from the more restrictive 1975 ordinance.

Brett T. Duffy v. the Absecon Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 2025

To establish a prima facie LAD failure-to-accommodate claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) "qualifies as an individual with a disability, or [] is perceived as having … Hagans, 233 N.J. 30, 38 (2018), the Absecon police defendants would—at this stage of the litigation—be unable to rely upon qualified immunity for dismissal of that claim.

Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co., Inc.

24 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1952

Fromer to answer questions propounded of him on the ground that he was not a qualified expert. As stated in Rempfer v. … We are of the opinion that as a prerequisite to admissibility the photograph should have been authenticated by a qualified observer definitely establishing the true reproduction of the conditions existing at the time of the

Espinal v. Arias

391 N.J. Super. 49 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2007

To succeed in his lawsuit, plaintiff was required to establish that within a reasonable degree of medical probability he sustained permanent injuries as a result of the automobile accident. N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. … Said another way, it establishes a threshold for an injured person to sue for noneconomic damages.

Bahrle v. Mirabelli

107 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1969

The proofs establish that in 1965 the State undertook a survey of all New Jersey municipalities to determine whether any employees who had not established membership in PEES were required to establish membership as a condition … In my judgment the State complied with its duty by circularizing to the municipalities and their certifying agents by way of pamphlets and other periodicals information which clearly indicated the mandatory requirement of

State v. Jennings

126 N.J. Super. 70 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1972

[Emphasis added] The court responded it would not "permit" Figone to testify as he "would clearly incriminate himself." … But the foregoing in nowise qualifies the admonitions in Boiardo and Fary , both supra, that only the witness personally may claim the privilege and then only when faced, under oath, with a specific question.

State v. Schamberg

146 N.J. Super. 559 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1977

Defendant signed a waiver of immunity after being advised that he was a target of an investigation into the East Rutherford Sewerage Authority of which he was a commissioner. … Hart is clearly distinguishable and is not controlling on the facts herein.

Rosenberg v. Tavorath

352 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2002

Villa stated that the purpose of his testimony was not to establish the exact dosage or to prove that Tavorath was not well-qualified, but simply to demonstrate that "a change should have been made ... and if ... … For that reason, the standard of care established by Dr.

LoBiondo v. Schwartz

323 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1999

Accordingly whether exercise of that right accords immunity, absolute or qualified, or is merely subject to the actual malice standard of New York Times makes no difference here in respect of this defamation claim since there … We cannot avoid the impression that if there were any qualifying outrageous conduct here, it was certainly not defendant's.

Jefferson v. Freeman

296 N.J. Super. 54 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1996

We hold that the jury instructions regarding this issue were misleading and clearly capable of producing an unjust result. … The erroneous instructions, therefore, were clearly capable of producing the verdict for defendants, and must be reversed as plain error. R. 2:10-2.

N. Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF PERSON'L

389 N.J. Super. 527 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2006

Therefore, the employment application qualifies as a public record under the common law. … In determining the propriety of an award of attorney fees, the court must first determine whether one qualifies as a "prevailing party." Dunn v.

In Re Boardwalk Regency Casino License Appl.

180 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 1981

Nevertheless, it found qualified for a license the corporation and all the persons required to qualify by N.J.S.A. 5:12-85 c and d, except Clifford and Stuart Perlman. … The statutory burden to demonstrate affirmatively the qualifying attributes, whatever they might be, has been expressly and clearly placed on the applicant by the Legislature and is subject to the canon of clear and convincing

Deubel v. Kervick

60 N.J. Super. 98 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1960

By the eighth article of the will the decedent established a residuary trust estate and directed Mr. … Accordingly, the problem is not whether the schools qualify as educational institutions but whether the Order of Saint Benedict does.

Tornquist v. Perkowski

208 N.J. Super. 88 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1984

Subsequent events cannot relate back to the time where the court found no conflict of interest existed so as to qualify or to disqualify counsel from proceeding to trial. … Risko, 56 N.J. 482 (1970) (abrogating interspousal tort immunity in automobile negligence actions); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535 (1978) (abrogating interspousal tort immunity in general). [23] Accord White v.

DEPT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS v. Cook

282 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 1995

In restricting these disclosure requirements to "government officers," the Legislature clearly wished to target individuals having policy-making responsibilities. … Our construction of the Ethics Law is consonant with the statutory language and furthers the clearly expressed legislative intent.

H.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services

379 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 2005

Therefore, under the then existing income-based test, he qualified for Medicaid. … , and clearly in need of support.

Wilson v. Brown

404 N.J. Super. 557 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 2009

The Court recognized that "[a] vital public interest is clearly involved in the effectiveness of the decision-making and investigatory duties of the executive." Id. at 226 , 386 A. 2d 846 . … executive privilege, finding that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity