Case law

State v. Galiano

349 N.J. Super. 157 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 2002

The first paragraph of N.J.S.A. 20:48-7.1 clearly speaks only to prior convictions — i.e., convictions preexisting sentencing for the offense that constitutes the third strike. … Simultaneous convictions for separate offenses would not qualify for enhanced punishment.

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.

In re Estate of Rodio

164 N.J. Super. 555 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1978

It is well established that a deed conveying real property to a legally married husband and wife will create a tenancy by the entirety unless the deed contains qualifying words by which a different tenancy is established. … It is contended that this statute requires language to appear in the granting and habendum clauses of a deed clearly demonstrating an intent to establish a joint tenancy.

Fitzgerald v. Wright

155 N.J. Super. 494 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1978

This appeal concerns the propriety of an involuntary dismissal granted by the trial judge because of the failure of plaintiff to present evidence of the quantum of medical expenses which would qualify him to recover in tort … Super. 140, 145-149 (Law Div. 1976). [1] We are mindful of the fact that the statutory provision is couched in terms of an "exemption" from tort liability — an immunity granted to a defendant under the designated factual

Kiczales v. Strelecki

103 N.J. Super. 257 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 1968

Clearly, had the accident in question occurred in New York, it would not have come within the protection of the MVAIC law. … Substantial similarity requires more than similarity of purpose, although this is essential to establish general reciprocity. There must also be substantial similarity of relief.

Lakeland Parks, Inc. v. Washington Township

147 N.J. Super. 528 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1977

The township’s finding as to this criterion is clearly arbitrary and capricious. … Yet, the trial judge, without evidential support, offered the opinion that “it has not been conclusively established as an existing street.”

State ex rel. of K.O.

424 N.J. Super. 555 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 2012

We will not go beyond the language of the statute if it “leads to a clearly understood result.” State v. Hudson, supra, 209 N.J. at 529 , 39 A.3d 150 (citing Shelley, supra, 205 N.J. at 323 , 15 A.3d 818 ). … Appellate review of a juvenile disposition is guided by *565 well-established sentencing standards.

In re Department of Institutions & Agencies

123 N.J. Super. 39 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1973

Any payment by the Title XIX (Medicaid) agency for this type of work function would not only be a violation of HEW Regulations but would clearly be outside the purview of Chapter 413. … It is suggested that for the most part these applications are prompted by the desire of the client to qualify for Medicaid.

Ross v. Ross

308 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1998

The Qualified Domestic Relations Orders shall be prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to both parties. … Biddle is clearly distinguishable. Here, Chiloro did not participate as a witness on behalf of another party.

Vedutis v. Tesi

135 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1975

While this court is mindful of the fact that the Tort Claims Act represents an abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity and, therefore, ought to be strictly construed, St ate v. … A. 2A:14-2.1 clearly bridges that gap, and reading the two statutes in pari materia serves to harmonize the law relating to the same subject matter.

Perri v. Kisselbach

58 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 15, 1959

Tlaker’s position is to be distinguished, so that he is a duly qualified voter. *534 I cannot agree. Mr. … Haker is likewise a patient and the distinguishing features are insufficient to establish domicile for voting purposes.

Bogda v. Chevrolet-Bloomfield Div., GM Corp.

8 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1950

To clearly understand the issue, it is necessary to elaborate somewhat on the facts. … In construing a statute, it is clearly established that the sense of a law is gathered from its object, the nature of the subject matter and the whole of the context in the acts pari materia; that the parts of a statute are

J.O. v. Township of Bedminster

433 N.J. Super. 199 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 2013

Hale, 206 N.J. 209 (2011), the court heard re-argument and issued a written decision finding that plaintiff did not qualify as a newsperson under the Act. … Const., art. 30 A-1838-11T3 I, ¶¶ 6, 7, and that they are not entitled to qualified immunity.

State v. Janiec

9 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1950

notice of the record of prior convictions; that the burden of proving the prior conviction or convictions and the identity of the defendant as being the same person previously convicted rests with the State and must be established … * "What has been said, and the authorities which have been cited, sufficiently show that there is no basis for the contention that the plaintiff in error has been put in double jeopardy, or that any of his privileges or immunities

Deo v. Morello

388 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2006

The Profits Sharing Plan also clearly provides that spousal consent is the written consent of a participant’s spouse. … In addition, ERISA clearly provides that an election of a waiver of the qualified joint and survivor annuity form of benefit or the qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity form of benefit or both under an ERISA governed

Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler

307 N.J. Super. 333 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1998

Unlike the ADEA, there is no minimum age limit established in the LAD. … A rational employer can be expected to promote the more qualified applicant over the less qualified, because it is in the employer’s best interest to do so.

Sabia v. Sabia

16 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1951

There was no dispute as to the marriage and qualifying residence of the parties. … refusal to have sexual intercourse with her husband for the statutory period of two years was clearly established by the surrounding facts and circumstances.

Peloso v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO.

102 N.J. Super. 357 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1968

Plaintiffs' argument is based on an erroneous assumption and also overlooks a statute which renders the cases on which they rely clearly distinguishable from the case under consideration. … Boston Insurance Company, 26 A.D.2d 863 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 122 ), unless substantive waiver or estoppel, as opposed to a simple failure to require proofs of loss per se, is established (Proc v.

KEARNY GENERATING SYS., PUB. SERV. DIV. v. Roper

184 N.J. Super. 253 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1982

It is undisputed that plaintiff has established steps (i), (ii) and (iii). The controversy revolves around step (iv) in determining whether plaintiff established a prima facie case. … For instance, if an employer is presented with a choice between two qualified applicants, selection of the least qualified because of a greater experience or personal attributes which enhance the applicant's value to the