Case law

Joyner v. Nissan 10 Inc.

253 N.J. Super. 510 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1991

Under the UCJF *513 law, only a qualified person as defined under the statute may seek compensation from the fund. … The legislators of this State have clearly excluded a class of claimants; those claimants operating or riding in a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner.

Debes v. Morganroth

48 N.J. Super. 39 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1957

Noticeably the liberal tort immunities of owners and possessors of land are being progressively modified by our decisional law. The modern concept of the defendant’s obligation of care for the safety of Mrs. … Debes indulged in contributory negligence which clearly appears conclusively as a fact or by necessary exclusive inference from the evidence submitted. Gentile v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 12 N. J.

Jp v. Dmahs

392 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 2007

To qualify for the exclusion, the trust shall contain the following provisions: i. The trust . . . shall be identified as an OBRA '93 trust established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). [ N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(g).] … Ibarra, 746 F.Supp. 19 (D.Colo.1990), Miller trusts permit individuals to qualify for Medicaid benefits in states that have income caps for Medicaid eligibility.

Eckerd Drugs of NJ, Inc. v. SR 215, Rite-Aid Corp.

170 N.J. Super. 37 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 1979

Clearly, a jury is not qualified to render the equitable relief demanded in the amended complaint; equally clearly a Chancery Division judge is qualified to hear the legal issues presented. Asbestos Fibres Inc. v. … Plaintiff is clearly not entitled to a jury's determination on the issues of equitable relief contained in the amended complaint.

City of East Orange v. Gilchrist

41 N.J. Super. 362 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1956

Gilchrist, who duly qualified as executrix of such will. … The option right of the city in nowise depends upon such notice, assuming that the fulfillment of the prime condition may otherwise be established.

State v. Hunter

194 N.J. Super. 177 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1984

An offense is so included when: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; or (2) It consists of an attempt or conspiracy to commit the … If the present case is to qualify under this provision, it must be pursuant to 2C:l-8d(l), as an offense which establishes “less *180 than all the facts required to establish ... the offense charged.”

McKenna v. Wiskowski

181 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 1981

As has been pointed out (footnote 1), a moped does not qualify as an automobile under the No Fault Act. … But before coverage can be extended to any applicant, he must clearly demonstrate that he is a member of the class for whose benefit the Fund was established. Wormack v. Howard, 33 N.J. 139, 143 (1960).

Velazquez v. Jiminez

336 N.J. Super. 10 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 2000

statute intended that the immunity stop at the door of the hospital. … in hospitals is unnecessary and immunizes negligent care in an environment in which no justification for such immunity exists.

STEVEN KADONSKY VS. STEVE C. LEE (Division of Consumer Affairs)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 2017

That premise cannot withstand the application of established principles of statutory construction. … A review of extrinsic evidence similarly establishes the mandatory nature of N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c).

Olarte v. Crocker

380 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 2002

Evenstein fails to qualify as a "physician" within the contemplation of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8. Alternatively, defendant argues that even if Dr. Evenstein does qualify, his certification is untimely. … The required production is not intended to go to the establishment of a cause of action." Ibid.

RICHARD UNDERHILL VS. BOROUGH OF CALDWELL (L-1631-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 2020

To the contrary, the language in the lease agreement in this case more clearly delegates to the tenant the duty to remove snow and ice. … Div. 1998), Judge Dreier questioned the wisdom of the breadth of the snow and ice immunity, but neither the Court nor the Legislature have limited the immunity nor extended the Bligen exception any further to date.

N.A.R., Inc., Etc. v. Eastern Outdoor Furnishings

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2025

Nonetheless, it is clear the record—even when viewed in a light most favorable to Eastern Outdoor— fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a qualifying "written arrangement." … Summary judgment on this pivotal element was appropriately granted, and there is no need to have a jury attempt to make the legal assessment 4 of whether a qualifying written arrangement was established.

Tomkovich v. Public Service Coord. Transp.

61 N.J. Super. 270 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 1960

We are confronted with a new facet of the problem of interspousal immunity under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law, N.J.S. 2 A :53 A -1 et seq. … These cases, in the light of the expanded concept of interspousal immunity reflected by the Koplik case, supra, point to the correct solution here.

Bank of New Jersey v. Abbott

207 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1986

Rather, taken together, they merely establish a ceiling which the parties agree should not be exceeded. … The fee was based on Judge Lowengrub’s conclusions that the Trustee was largely immune from liability, and that much of the Trustee’s work consisted of finding others to manage the trust property.

S. Orange-Maplewood Ed. v. Bd. Ed. S. Orange

146 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 18, 1977

Plaintiff brought this action for specific enforcement of provisions of an agreement relating to *460 sabbatical leave for qualifying teachers. … Sabbatical leave is clearly a term and condition of employment. It is akin to wage and vacation benefits.

Hiering v. Board of Trustees of Public Employees

197 N.J. Super. 14 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 5, 1984

As a veteran, he qualifies under N.J.S.A. 43:15A-61a or b for a retirement allowance of 1/2 of the compensation received during his last year of creditable service. … The conversion from prior vouchered independent contractor provisions for legal services to salaried employee positions is clearly within the discretion of both OCUA and the Borough.

Donevero v. Jersey City Incinerator Auth'y

75 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1962

"Under our system, the government is established by and run for all of the people, not for the benefit of any person or group. The profit motive, inherent in the principle of free enterprise, is absent. … It was clearly the understanding and intention of the Constitutional Convention, which drafted the basic State Charter, that no such right to strike on the part of public employees was to be implied from the language used

Valenti v. Board of Review

4 N.J. Super. 162 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1949

Valenti establish that she was able to and available for work and thus eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, as prescribed by R.S. 43:21-4 (c)? … qualify for benefits it is essential that it appear that the claimant is `able to work' and `available for work.'

Lancellotti v. Maryland Cas. Co.

260 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1992

Plaintiffs were entitled to insure the earnings and contents as individuals since, clearly, they had an insurable interest in their own business. … Lancellotti is not a qualified expert and because of the previous orders requiring production of experts' reports.

FDIC v. Birchwood Builders

240 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 1990

We also find clearly without merit defendant's contention that a New York Statute of Limitations proscribes charging defendant's interest in the partnership with plaintiff's judgment. … While we need not resolve this issue on such grounds, in absence of a specific congressional intent to waive governmental immunity from state statutes of limitation, the contention of plaintiff's immunity from local statutes