Case law

Rockland Elec. Co. v. Bolo Corp.

66 N.J. Super. 171 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1961

Brokaw must be read in the context of prior decisions establishing that "the most material circumstance" in qualifying an expert witness as to land values is a showing that the proposed expert was either personally involved … The sound discretion of a trial judge in qualifying expert witnesses cannot override an established and precise rule of law guiding him in a particular situation.

Shuman v. National Casualty Co.

80 N.J. Super. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 1963

However, in this instance the Institute has established a program of grants to qualified institutions to enable them to finance the study and training of qualified individuals or physicians who desire to be psychiatrists. … adequate level for psychiatric residency training for physicians in practice who wish to become psychiatrists. *319 Since the purpose of the program as well as other portions indicates clearly that a practicing physician,

In re the estate of Breining

68 N.J. Eq. 553 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1904

The sole contest in this case is whether a paper writing purporting to- be the last will and testament of Ernest Breining, deceased, was executed with all the formalities required to establish it as a valid testamentary disposition … In this conclusion I concur for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Skinner appearing in the transcript, which are so clearly stated as to render any repetition unnecessary.

Illva Saronno Corp. v. Liberty Hill Realty Inc.

344 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2001

It was clearly the contemplation of the parties that development plans would expeditiously be followed and that in the course of their experience the time frame set forth in the agreements are clearly definable, clearly understood … [is] clearly definable, clearly understood by the parties and ... governed only by the obligation of `good faith and fair dealing' of both parties to the agreement."

HEATHER GENSINGER VS. IRIS REYES (L-0125-16, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2020

As for Reyes and Metz, the court dismissed claims against them under the NJCRA in their individual capacities due to qualified immunity, and under the TCA due to absolute immunity. … Therefore, an officer accused of false arrest can assert qualified immunity to an NJCRA claim if the officer's "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Reinbold v. Reinbold

311 N.J. Super. 460 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1998

Clearly, this pension will not be earned on the 20th anniversary of defendant’s entry into the service. … The decision to take the early retirement package clearly benefitted defendant.

Sanders v. Langemeier

401 N.J. Super. 125 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 2008

Clearly, for liability purposes, a vehicle covered with a special policy is considered an uninsured motor vehicle under the UCJF Law, while one covered by a basic policy is not. … Clearly, if he did, he would be a covered person precluded from seeking UCJF benefits.

East Penn Sanitation, Inc. v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc.

294 N.J. Super. 158 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 26, 1996

Furthermore, plaintiff clearly failed to qualify for a temporary registration under N.J.A.C. 7:26-16.5(c), because there is no evidence that the issuance of such a registration was required "to prevent or ameliorate a hazard … It is also generally recognized that it is not tortious interference to cause "the nonperformance of an illegal agreement or an agreement having a purpose or effect in violation of an established public policy."

Board of Education of Township of Willingboro v. Employees Ass'n of Willingboro Schools

178 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 1981

It is to be observed at the outset that the parity clause involved the health insurance benefit program, a clearly negotiable condition of employment. … The contract in question qualifies for arbitration. The only period in question commenced February 1, 1978 and concluded June 30, 1978, entirely before the pronouncement in Plainfield. Affirmed.

Hudgins v. Serrano

186 N.J. Super. 465 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 1982

Council, 49 N.J. 341 (1967), in its over-all effect fairly apprised the jury of its obligations in this trial and certainly was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result. … We believe that the word "generally" in the quotation from Sanzari clearly qualifies any purported rigidity of the rule.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Open MRI of Morris & Essex, LP

356 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2002

Prior to discussing whether or not this court has the authority to vacate an arbitration award under applicable law, it must first be established whether or not the determination of the arbitrator was clearly incorrect under … The cases cited previously clearly establish that the correct legal rule in situations such as in the present case is that if an MRI facility does not possess an ambulatory care license when the subject services were rendered

Potente v. County of Hudson

378 N.J. Super. 40 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2005

The judge concluded that Potente had met the LAD’s three-prong test for handicap discrimination by demonstrating that: (1) he was handicapped; (2) he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job with or without … On the contrary, the purpose of the TCA is to “reestablish the immunity of public entities while coherently ameliorating the harsh results of the doctrine [of sovereign immunity].” Beauchamp v.

In Re NJAC 12: 17-9.6 Ex Rel. State Dept. of Labor

395 N.J. Super. 394 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 2007

The agency contends the challenged regulation does not establish a per se rule automatically exempting under N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a) every employee who accepts an employer's offer of a separation package. … The claimants, upon whom eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits is conferred under the challenged regulation, clearly are "not the type of workers the Act is designed to protect" because "rather than being involuntarily

Jerista v. Murray

367 N.J. Super. 292 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2004

Clearly, then, a plaintiff is not entitled to bring her case to a jury under res ipsa loquitur any time there is an unexplained accident for which a defendant might plausibly be responsible. … Co., 142 N.J. 520, 540 , 666 A. 2d 146 (1995), it is remarkable—and paradoxical—that an attorney who so clearly breached his duties of due care and diligence in handling his clients' cause, and so completely defaulted on

DiGiovanni v. Pessel

104 N.J. Super. 550 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1969

The foundation upon which this extraordinary privilege ( i.e., immunity where the three elements just mentioned have been established) rests is that the private prosecution of public offenses is regarded as essential to the … The source and basis of this privilege is clearly articulated in Restatement, Torts 2 d, § 37 comment ( b ) (1965): "One who institutes criminal proceedings against another intends to cause an arrest which is the normal incident

Daughters of Miriam Home v. LEGALIZED GAMES, ETC.

42 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 1956

*415 The petitioners have the burden of establishing that this was palpably the legislative intention. … The arguments that the rules deny due process and equal protection of the laws and that they establish an arbitrary classification of qualified lessors, discriminatory to such lessors as the State Garden, are rejected.

Mays v. Penza

179 N.J. Super. 185 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1981

The requirements to hold a public office and to be nominated by a particular political party are not one and the same as was clearly stated by the New Jersey Supreme Court as follows: *191 There is a marked difference between … Primary election laws do not confer the right of qualified persons to become candidates. Such laws only establish the parameters governing the orderly conduct of primary elections. See Alston v.

Batten by Batten v. Bobo

218 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1986

Rand, supra , decision, which established social host liability for serving liquor to a visibly intoxicated minor for his subsequent negligent acts. … The court in Rappaport noted this State has recognized a clearly-stated policy that it opposes drinking by minors. N.J.S.A. 33:1-81.

State v. Tremblay

185 N.J. Super. 137 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1982

penalty does not apply if an earlier conviction is for the disorderly person offenses of possession of marijuana, [4] or for being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. [5] On the other hand, he would clearly … qualify as a persistent criminal offender if the present possession offense is the kind of "crime" referred to in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).

Metalsalts Corp. v. Weiss

70 N.J. Super. 355 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1961

The mere fact that Doherty makes such allegations does not, however, establish that said statements were in fact made in connection with such a proceeding. … I am also of the opinion that Doherty's defense of qualified privilege cannot possibly constitute sufficient grounds upon which to base summary judgment in his favor.