Case law

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.'

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

Holmes v. Cavicchia

29 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 1954

App. 1941). *438 We find decisions holding that technical proof may be required to establish the alcoholic quantity of beer where there is evidence that the beverage was "qualified beer," i.e., spruce beer, small beer, ginger … Clearly, there was sufficient evidence to support the Director's findings that the appellants unlawfully had served the minors an alcoholic beverage in violation of the Regulation. The order is affirmed.

Myers v. Cave

55 N.J. Super. 185 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 13, 1959

The issue of statutory construction posed by this controversy is clearly drawn. It has not heretofore been passed on by our courts. … But we cannot find either in section 14 or elsewhere in the act an intent to qualify the unconditional remedies clearly granted the Board by the act against an application for payment of a default judgment, as specified in

HARE EX REL. HARE v. Pennell

37 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1955

Div. 1952), affirmed 11 N.J. 207 (1953), where the court considered R.S. 18:5-30 granting school districts immunity from liability for personal injuries resulting from the use of any public grounds, buildings or structures … When counsel for plaintiffs asked permission to question the child in order to qualify her, the court cut him off. The mother of the second child, Cheryl Taylor, testified she would shortly be nine-years-old.

Bartholf v. Board of Review

36 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1955

A. 43:21-4(e)) to establish, with respect to his base year, 17 base weeks as defined in N. J. S. … In fixing the qualifying requirement that a claimant establish 17 base weeks in his base year during which he has earned remuneration in employment (N. J. S.

Liptak v. Rite Aid, Inc.

289 N.J. Super. 199 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 1996

Liptak's alleged alcoholism was clearly not "a straightforward observation of a treating physician...." … Id. at 164 , 632 A. 2d 1264 . [7] The Clinic qualifies under the exception given the broad definition of the term "business."

State v. Speare

86 N.J. Super. 565 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1965

facts established. … We are satisfied that the contract in question did not qualify as newly discovered evidence calling for a new trial.

Jones v. College of Med. & Dent. of NJ, Rutgers

155 N.J. Super. 232 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 1977

The emphasis which these received could only have resulted from a clearly mistaken perception of their context. … It may well be, as the Director found, that respondent was well qualified for the job.

Rolle v. Rolle

219 N.J. Super. 528 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1987

The establishment of a rule of "merger" under Mangone invites an inequitable result. … Super. 382 (Ch.Div. 1982) are not inconsistent with this analysis since the interests deemed distributable therein were clearly acquired "during the marriage."

MICHAEL BESSASPARIS VS. THE TOWNSHIP OF BRIDGEWATER (L-1419-17, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 2021

at 385-387 (discussing application of qualified immunity in § 1983 case); Bayer v. Twp. of Union, 414 N.J Super. 238, 261 (App. … of federal qualified immunities and N.J.S.A. 59:3-14.

State v. Corbisiero

67 N.J. Super. 170 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1961

As such, the ordinance is clearly invalid as a prior restraint on the exercise of First Amendment rights." … It is clear that the right to religious belief is absolute, but that the right to religious speech or activity may be qualified, albeit, only to a very limited degree.

Blecker v. State

323 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1999

QMBs, in turn, fall into two groups: those who are not *543 poor enough to qualify for Medicaid ("pure" QMBs) and those whose level of financial need is so great as to qualify them for Medicaid ("dual eligibles"). .... … Appellees' arguments that Act § 4714 is new law, despite Congress' unambiguous title for that section, cannot override that deference, because those arguments incorrectly presume a clearly established meaning for Section

MF v. Department of Human Services

395 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 2007

of recipients in work activities; enhanced efforts to establish paternity and establish and enforce child support obligations. . . . [ N.J.S.A. 44:10-56(h).] … The Legislature has clearly and unequivocally required the existence of a court order establishing a legal relationship and we may not depart from that requirement. Affirmed.

State v. Duswalt

153 N.J. Super. 399 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 1977

Thereafter, in March 1976, a municipal court was established in the latter municipality. … There is no present question of defendant's guilt of the charges, which was clearly established by the evidence.

Jamison v. Rockaway Tp. Bd. of Educ.

242 N.J. Super. 436 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1990

These, in addition to other reasons given by the expert, clearly demonstrate the pretextual nature of Fanning's rejection of Jamison. … opportunity to present evidence on that issue by a qualified expert.

Skolski v. Woodcock

149 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1977

The judge also held that while N.J.S.A. 11:22-7 limited the eligibility of applicants for positions and employment in the classified service to qualified residents of the county in which the service is to be rendered and … Such a construction is clearly contrary to the equity and spirit of the Civil Service Act. Cf. 2A Sutherland, *346 Statutory Construction (4 ed. Sands, 1973) §§ 54.01 and 54.08; Terminal Const. Corp. v. Atlantic Cty.

Patton v. Texas Co.

13 N.J. Super. 42 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1951

The proofs, however, show clearly that the step structure was part of the premises demised. The determinative facts are revealed in the parties’ own statements of the extent of the leasehold. … The landowner’s immunity is no different whether the condition is deemed a nuisance or not.

Cooper Hospital University v. Prudential Insurance

378 N.J. Super. 510 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2005

Clearly, if Prudential qualified only under the amended section, it would be entitled to the relief it sought below because, pursuant to that section, PIP benefits are only provided “for any New Jersey resident who is not … The use of such conjunctive language as a segue into the original segment clearly indicates that qualifying insurers, such as Prudential, are subject to the broader obligations set forth therein.

Giovine v. Giovine

284 N.J. Super. 3 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1995

Nonetheless, the Court concluded that interspousal immunity in all tort actions would thereafter be abolished. Id. at 556 , 388 A. 2d 951 . … However, in order to qualify for a jury trial, the claimant must establish by written expert opinion that proofs will be introduced at trial demonstrating that the injury is serious and significant, resulting in permanent