Case law

75 SPRUCE v. State Board

382 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2005

The State Board is entitled to the immunity conferred by § 3 of the New Jersey Contractual Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 59:13-3, and both cases are hereby dismissed. … The legislative intent in adopting the Charter School Program Act is clearly expressed in § 2: The Legislature finds and declares that the establishment of charter schools as part of this State's program of public education

State v. Williams

189 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1983

The Middlesex County CETA is the agency representing a geographic unit eligible under federal legislation to receive monies for the purpose of providing employment and training to qualified persons. … The proofs at the trial clearly demonstrated that defendant hired noncertified individuals who were allowed to work less than 40 hours a week.

City of Long Branch v. Monmouth Medical Center

138 N.J. Super. 524 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1976

The evidence established that the substantially lower rentals charged by the Center to the resident physicians, interns and nurses served as a subsidy to attract qualified people to its staff. … In order to qualify for an exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, the building must be "actually and exclusively used" for exempt purposes.

Goldstein v. Lincoln Park Planning Board

52 N.J. Super. 44 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 16, 1958

Further, it is argued that approval of maps under the Old Map Act is subject to a subsequent valid exercise of the police power, and that such approval, therefore, does not grant immunity from provisions of the Planning Act … The rule is established in zoning that the delineation of lots on a map filed with municipal approval does not necessarily carry with it any guaranty that each lot or parcel will be sufficient in itself to build upon when

Beck v. Tribert

312 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 1998

Scheming Corp., 141 N.J. 16 , 660 A.2d 1153 (1995), clearly indicate that CEPA does not apply to post-employment retaliatory negative references. … Sharp Electronics Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 751-52 , 563 A.2d 31 (1989). *353 Plaintiffs claim here clearly fails for lack of sufficient evidence.

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.

State v. Browne

86 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1965

Rep. 250 (1609), which arose out of a libel in verse directed against a deceased Archbishop of Canterbury and a living Bishop, the common law of criminal libel was established. … The courts recognize "a privilege or immunity which may be absolute or qualified; the difference is that the absolute privilege [ e.g., judicial proceedings or legislative debate] affords complete protection whereas the qualified

Burns v. Edwards

367 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2004

The common qualifying requirements for both SSI and SSD is an applicant's disability, consisting of "a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can … Clearly, 42 U.S.C.A. § 659 (a) exempts non-means-tested federal benefits, "the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment," from execution or garnishment, and retains the sovereign immunity established

Johnson v. Johnson

320 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1999

The Annuity Fund is established and maintained pursuant to the provisions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 to -1461, and the IRC, 26 U.S.C.A. § 401 to -419A. … QDRO's must meet certain requirements for exemption from ERISA's antialienation provision: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— (i) the name and

Anderson v. AJ FRIEDMAN SUPPLY

416 N.J. Super. 46 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 20, 2010

Once the ability to foresee harm was established, fairness and justness extended the duty to the wife. Ibid. … She refused, reasoning that the jury could not allocate fault to Exxon as Bonnie's employer, because Exxon was immune from suit pursuant to the WCA.

Society of Holy Child Jesus v. City of Summit

418 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2011

Noting that the taxpayers’ property “clearly qualified for farmlands assessment,” the Court reversed the decision of the Tax Court that denied the assessment because “the taxpayers’ use of their property for the production … As we noted early on, the Statute clearly and unambiguously contains no such requirement. Recently, in Presbyterian Home at Pennington, Inc. v.

Jones v. Aluminum Shapes, Inc.

339 N.J. Super. 412 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2001

Once again, this fact does not establish an issue of fact with regard to bad faith. … Jones can point to no action on the part of Aluminum Shapes which would establish a reasonable basis on which a jury could establish a finding of bad faith failure to engage in the interactive process.

Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Dudnick

292 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 1996

. *15 Defendant's contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). I. … Plaintiff clearly established the reliability of the bill. The burden then shifted to defendant to offer some evidence that the bill was not reliable. Defendant failed to do so.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.V.

382 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2005

However, as the mother’s antibodies die off and the baby’s immune system matures and produces antibodies to environmental antigens, the child can ultimately test negative for the virus. This is known as seroreversion. … According to that court, the benefit of the proposed treatment was not clearly established by expert testimony. In re Nikolas E., 720 A.2d 562 (Me.1998). Here, DYFS’s expert established the treatment benefit.

State v. Oliver

316 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1998

POINT III THE STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR AN EXTENDED TERM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE. … Plain error is reversible only if it is "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. Accordingly, we will reverse only if "the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached." State v.

Britney Motil v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2024

Defendant posits the declaration and UIM step-down endorsement "clearly and unambiguously demonstrate[d] that [plaintiff's] recovery of UIM benefits was expressly limited." We disagree. … Specifically, the policy could have clarified that the only qualifying "household" was the residence of the named insured and an identified alternate address was excluded.

Britney Motil v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2024

Defendant posits the declaration and UIM step-down endorsement "clearly and unambiguously demonstrate[d] that [plaintiff's] recovery of UIM benefits was expressly limited." We disagree. … Specifically, the policy could have clarified that the only qualifying "household" was the residence of the named insured and an identified alternate address was excluded.

Volz v. Civil Service Commission

86 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1965

One of the purposes of the civil service system is to provide the best qualified persons to appointing authorities. Borough of Park Ridge v. Salimone, 21 N.J. 28 (1956). … Courts will not interfere with the actions of this Commission, in the exercise of its broad discretion, "unless they are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable." Flanagan v.

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.

State v. Triestman

416 N.J. Super. 195 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 10, 2010

An "indictment should not be dismissed unless the prosecutor's error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. … Defendant points out that N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b does not have any such subsections; the State asserts that the "(1)" is clearly a reference to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(1).