Case law

State v. Prudden

212 N.J. Super. 608 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 1986

Lovejoy was not qualified as an expert. She *617 next claims that the State failed to establish the reliability of the techniques employed. We are entirely satisfied that Dr. … The State's evidence clearly established that the techniques employed by the witness were sufficiently reliable to permit an expert opinion excluding Downey on the basis of the prints taken at the scene as compared with the

In the Matter of the Implementation of L. 2012, C. 24

443 N.J. Super. 73 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2015

A-4565-13T3 IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF L. 2012, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION C. 24, N.J.S.A. 48:3-87(t) - A PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH A November 12, 2015 PROGRAM TO PROVIDE SRECs … Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:2-46, this court may review any order of the board and . . . set aside such order in whole or in part when it clearly appears that there was no evidence

Brown v. Port Authority Police Superior Officers Ass'n

283 N.J. Super. 122 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1995

This analysis of the scope of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in the federal courts clearly has no bearing upon the *133 interpretation of the exclusion of public entities from the provisions of federal labor law enacted … City of Newark, 75 N.J. 84 , 380 A.2d 268 (1977), this exclusion clearly has no applicability to a suit for money damages.

In Re Napp Technologies, Inc. Litigation

338 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2000

However, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. … Since H & R has not established a community "with the goals and concerns that underlie the journalist's privilege," it may not successfully invoke it. *283 IV H & R is not entitled to assert the qualified First Amendment

State v. Gantt

186 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1982

The language is necessary to qualify a less recognizable type of weapon as a firearm. … Clearly, the Legislature is free to enact mandatory sentencing statutes, this being a matter of policy within its discretion. State v.

Karmazin v. Pennsylvania RR

82 N.J. Super. 123 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1964

Defendant strenuously objected at the trial to plaintiff's asserted justification for submission of the proof, and we think it was clearly right. … On principle, this rule clearly applies to a station platform, as here.

T.M. v. R.M.W.

456 N.J. Super. 446 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2017

While one date is clearly insufficient, S.K. , 426 N.J. … Likewise, pain caused by repeated strikes qualifies as bodily injury. State ex rel. T.S. , 413 N.J. Super. 540 , 543, 997 A.2d 233 (App. Div. 2010).

ROSE BENGEL VS. HOLIDAY CITY AT BERKELEY FIRST AID SQUAD, INC. (L-0192-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2020

This test recognizes that even a person who acted negligently is entitled to a qualified immunity, if he acted in an objectively reasonable manner. [Ibid. … On appeal, plaintiffs appear to have abandoned their prior claim that defendants were not responding to a medical emergency to qualify for immunity.

ESSENTIAL SAV. AND LOAN ASSN. v. Howell

105 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1969

The Legislature *435 has thus clearly evidenced its intention that the words "suitable substitute therefor" shall have reference to the office previously operated by the association whose assets have been purchased, rather … By enacting section 27 the Legislature was not merely authorizing the establishment of another branch.

State v. JF

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.

State v. Gilmore

199 N.J. Super. 389 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1985

This does not mean that the members of such a group are immune from peremptory challenges: individual members thereof may still be struck on grounds of specific bias, as defined herein. … Blacks clearly constitute a protected group. Invidious discrimination cannot be condoned because it is not only injurious to the individual, but to the community as a whole. In Strauder v.

Guerriero v. U-Drive-It Co. of NJ

22 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 1952

The trial court dismissed the action on the ground that the immunity of the husband extended to his employer. … To effectuate any change in the common law, the legislative intent to do so must be clearly and plainly expressed. Carlo v. Okonite-Callender Cable Co., 3 N.J. 253 (1949), citing U.S. Cas. Company v.

Jaclyn Thompson v. Board of Trustees, Teachers'

449 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2017

"In response, [the Court] established a high threshold for the award of accidental disability benefits" in Patterson. Ibid. … By contrast, the ALJ did not find a qualifying event and then fail to recognize the dispositive nature of that finding. Rather, the ALJ found no qualifying event had occurred.

State v. Williams

182 N.J. Super. 427 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1982

The trial judge found that the privilege was properly asserted and the State thereupon petitioned and obtained an order granting Madison immunity. … The alleged statements clearly bore on a fundamental part of the State's case against petitioner.

James v. City of East Orange

246 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1991

While it is true that "mere possession of a license to practice medicine does not without more conclusively establish the physician's competency to testify in a malpractice case ... … Both contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Aldine Stoll v. Cumberland County

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 2024

In this regard, we have reviewed the record against our de novo standard of review, and conclude the order should be affirmed because Officer Velez is entitled to qualified good faith immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3. … A-3457-22 18 employees qualified immunity for certain tort claims, declaring that "a public employee is not liable if he acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement of any

Village Supermarket v. Mayfair

269 N.J. Super. 224 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 24, 1993

Applying the Noerr doctrine is clearly appropriate. … The holding in Columbia Pictures deals with the "sham" exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity.

Michael Rose v. Borough of Oakland

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2025

"The TCA 'effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.'" Lee v. Brown, 232 N.J. 114, 127 (2018). … "Our courts have taken an expansive view of the types of government employees who qualify as 'public officials.'" Stanridge v. Ramey, 323 N.J. Super. 538, 545 (App.

ELMER BRANCH, ETC. VS. CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY (L-4744-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 2019

After the parties exchanged some written discovery, on August 4, 2017, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immunized from liability under the good-faith defense. … Because the good-faith defense provides a total bar on liability for violations of the WHL, it clearly operates as an exemption to the WHL's requirements.

W.S. VS. DEREK HILDRETH (L-0043-20, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2021

However, the judge concluded the motion record did "not establish a basis for tolling the accrual of the cause of action beyond plaintiff's eighteenth birthday," "let alone until April 2016, or thereafter." … The Legislature clearly intended that plaintiff's 2020 complaint was in the universe of lawsuits to which Chapter 120 would apply.