Case law

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

In Re Patterson

382 N.J. Super. 366 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 2006

have qualified as a great rush of force or uncontrollable power. … We are aware that another panel of this court recently held that psychic stimulus alone, absent the application of "external physical force" does not qualify as a traumatic event sufficient to establish eligibility for accidental

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.

State v. Cathcart

247 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1991

Kearns, defendant attempted to establish what is known as the "cocaine isomer defense." … or the machine was operated by another person who was qualified to do it.

OSBADO HERNANDEZ VS. HUDSON COUNTY (L-3623-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2020

Plaintiff also argues the judge erred in finding that the Sheriff was entitled to "qualified immunity." … the summary judgment dismissal on plaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie NJCRA claim, there was no need to apply the doctrine of qualified immunity.

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.

PAUL MATTIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

455 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2018

The standard of review that applies in an appeal from a state agency decision is well established. … See also Richardson, 192 N.J. at 213-15 (holding that in order to qualify for such benefits, a member of the retirement system must establish, among other things, that "the traumatic event occurred during and as a result

Phillipsburg Riverview Organization, Inc. v. Town of Phillipsburg

27 N.J. Tax 188 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 2013

On appeal, plaintiff contends it established it qualified for tax exemption, because “[t]he only pocket that matters in tax exemption cases is what becomes of the organization’s funds[,]” the judge’s finding regarding the … The artists also established the price for their paintings, and the gala, weekly shows, and private woi’kspace for the artists in *195 residence was clearly geared towards assisting them in selling their wares.

Viviano v. CBS, INC.

251 N.J. Super. 113 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 1991

By its verdict the jury found that plaintiff had established all of the elements of fraudulent concealment, and the record supports its finding. Cf. Carrino v. … Defendants' remaining grounds of appeal are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

McLelland v. Moore

343 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 2001

In such instances, a jury is not qualified to say without guidance which purposes for possessing a weapon are unlawful and which are not. … Especially with the emphasized passage, they invited the jury to make the determination that only the trial court was qualified to make.

Certisimo v. Heidelberg Company

122 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 6, 1972

HEIDELBERG COMPANY, A COMPANY ESTABLISHED IN WEST GERMANY, AND HEIDELBERG EASTERN, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DEFENDANTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, v. … Clearly, however, if it is not foreseeable that the foreign party's actions will have an effect in the forum state, then there can be no "voluntary action calculated to have an effect in the forum state."

Ballinger v. Delaware River Port Authority

311 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 1998

This discrepancy clearly demonstrates that the two states have not reached an agreement about the application of the whistleblower laws. … While DRPA may arguably fall within this definition, all that this connotes is that DRPA could be subject to CEPA if the concurrence of Pennsylvania or the consent of DRPA had been established. See, e.g., Bunk v.

State v. Bass

189 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 1983

penalty than a jury not so "qualified." … than a "non-qualified" jury to convict a defendant *464 and sentence him to death.

Feinberg v. Red Bank Volvo, Inc.

331 N.J. Super. 506 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2000

Although we have concluded, after a careful review of the entire record, that plaintiff established a consumer fraud violation, we are satisfied that plaintiff, who has appeared pro se throughout this matter, failed to prove … This regulation declares unlawful [t]he failure to state all disclaimers, qualifiers, or limitations that in fact limit, condition, or negate a purported unconditional offer ... clearly and conspicuously, next to the offer

Puntasecca v. Violent Crimes Compensation Board

214 N.J. Super. 368 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1986

In arriving at its conclusions the court noted that Krauth implies that an arsonist would not enjoy immunity. Id. at 572. … Clearly, the “fireman’s rule” does not itself bar a firefighter from recovery for injuries from an arson-caused fire.

Errichetti v. Merlino

188 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1982

In reviewing an act of the Legislature it is only when the prohibition clearly appears in the Constitution that it may be said to exist. … She sought to argue the unconstitutionality of the immunization requirement on the basis of her own religious freedom, but was denied standing.

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.

Township of Edison v. Coleman

239 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1990

repeatedly or habitually failed to enforce the Code, it further concluded that appellant’s argument that a local enforcing agency was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before DCA could assume jurisdiction was clearly … We note that this regulation was amended, effective November 6, 1989, to clearly indicate its inapplicability to the kind of proceedings involved in this appeal. 21 N.J.R. 3460-3461.

Hamilton v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

366 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 2004

Demskie, 892 F.Supp. 503, 506-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (granting qualified immunity to prison official in prisoner’s § 1983 action on the ground that it was not clearly established that reasonable suspicion must exist to support

Di Ciurcio v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

299 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1997

(Neither Liberty nor Allstate *429 contends that plaintiff failed to comply with the procedures established in Longworth v. … analysis if the Allstate policy purchased by plaintiffs father provided only $15,000/$30,000 UIM coverage, thereby making plaintiff ineligible for UIM benefits under the Allstate policy, while the terms of the Liberty policy clearly