Case law

Hyland v. Simmons

152 N.J. Super. 569 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 1977

The above authorities establish clearly that the instant cause of action is independent from any past criminal proceeding against defendant, regardless of its outcome. … It is well established that since this is a purely equitable action, [2] the general statute of limitations is not applicable. Colton v. Depew, 60 N.J. Eq. 454, 458-459 (E. & A. 1900).

Hudson United Bank v. House of Supreme, Inc.

149 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1977

Special deposits are immune from set-off by a bank because the right of set-off arises only when there is a mutuality of relationship between the customer and the bank. … In most jurisdictions the general-special deposit distinction as it relates to a bank's right of set-off is a well established rule of law.

United States v. Menendez

270 F. Supp. 3d 780 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2017

This right is established by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, United States v. … He merely faces the reality, clearly contemplated by the Founders, that criminal prosecution may interrupt congressional duties. See Williamson, 207 U.S. at 445-46 , 28 S.Ct. 163 .

Private Truck Council of America, Inc. v. State

210 N.J. Super. 611 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 1985

Privileges and Immunities The Private Truck plaintiffs also allege that the Counterpart Fee Act, N.J.S.A. 39:3-6, violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1. … The Privileges and Immunities Clause prohibits a state from discriminating against nonresidents with respect to privileges and immunities which bear upon the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Baldwin v.

Commercial Trust Co. v. Hudson County Board of Taxation

87 N.J.L. 179 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 9, 1914

It may he well to say, by way of parenthesis, that the expression that such classification was “forced upon the state’'’ by federal legislation, ought not to be misleading in view of the context which clearly shows that what … of the statute, we have nothing to add to the opinion excepting to say that statutes for the performance of governmental -functions, which will not be invalidated by the courts upon an agreed state of facts, are equally immune

Parker v. Merlino

493 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 13, 1980

This would violate established state principles of separation of powers, Passaic Co. Bar Ass’n v. Hughes, 108 N.J.Super. 161 , 260 A.2d 261 (Ch.Div.1969). … VI of the United States Constitution, clearly mandates this conclusion. . Finally, we must reject the suggestion that Tenney v.

Cureton v. Eley

294 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 1996

A claimant under the UCJF must establish that he is a qualified person. … A qualified victim of a hit-and-run driver must meet the criteria established in N.J.S.A. 39:6-78.

Sudler v. Environ. Disposal Corp.

219 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1987

The two Antitrust Act claims are also barred by statutory immunity. In Zoneraich v. Overlook Hosp., 212 N.J. Super. 83, 93 (App. … The immunity protection therefore covers Hills as well as EDC. Sudler's remaining points are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The decision of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners is affirmed.

Spilker v. WILLIAM PENN LIFE INS.

251 N.J. Super. 480 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 1991

In this appeal we are called upon to review the motion judge's interpretation of life insurance incontestability established by N.J.S.A. 17B:25-4. … While Formosa clearly stated insurance policies remain contestable when the insured does not survive the two year period, that issue was not directly before the court.

Deiches v. CARPENTERS'HEALTH & WELF. FUND OF PHILA.

572 F. Supp. 766 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 1983

A small number of authorities sketch the outlines of what qualifies as an impermissible intrusion on the federal regulatory ERI-SA scheme. In Delta Airlines v. … To rule otherwise would grant ERISA plan-Fund’s immunities from general state law obligations, an immunity that Congress gave no hint of a desire to confer.

State v. Matos

273 N.J. Super. 6 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1994

Defendant's assertion of unfairness is clearly without merit. … Clearly, the hearing was held solely for the purpose of determining whether defendant were going to testify at Alvarez's trial sometime in the future.

D.D. v. University of Medicine & Dentistry

213 N.J. 130 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 2013

And it is for this reason that we have often described the Tort Claims Act as the means through which the Legislature “re-establishe[d]” sovereign immunity. Id. at 289 , 850 A.2d 1238 ; see also Ogborne v. … The Legislature’s waiver of sovereign immunity remains a limited one and we are not free to expand that waiver beyond its statutorily-established boundaries.

Cheyenne Corp. v. Township of Byram

248 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1991

In order to qualify, the owner must establish that (1) the property consists of at least five acres, and (2) he derives a minimum average income of $500 for the first five acres and $.50 for each additional acre during the … The Township's remaining contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

State v. Jordan

197 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 1984

We do this even though the verdicts were amply supported by the evidence for the very serious trial errors in this matter were clearly capable of producing an unjust result and indeed made convictions particularly of one … But prior cases indicated that a judge does not have power to grant use immunity. Rather the procedure for a witness to obtain such immunity is statutory.

Williams v. Department of Human Services

116 N.J. 102 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1989

This assistance continues for as long as the recipient remains qualified. Normally, an individual remains qualified so long as he or she is financially in need. … Under that argument, its “choice of a five-month limitation on homeless aid, given the limits on State funding, is clearly a rational one.”

TORA EVANS VS. DAVID PETRACCA (L-3092-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2020

We turn first to plaintiff's civil rights claim and the application of qualified immunity. … clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Housing Authority of Newark v. Henry

334 F. Supp. 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1971

Second, no federal law confers immunity from state prosecution on such charges. … They then argued that “since they are immune from prosecution, any proceeding in the state court will necessarily deny them their rights protected by this immunity. * * * ” ( 439 F.2d at 1019 ).

ST. FLEUR v. CITY OF LINDEN, NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2019

alleges against him.14 “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Nov. 4, 2010) (reasoning that, if the police defendants arrested the plaintiff without probable cause and “then maliciously prosecute[d] him, qualified immunity will not protect [the defendants] as these are clearly established

New Jersey District Kiwanis International v. Gandhi

284 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1994

The Kiwanis sponsored Key Club qualifies for inclusion in this category. … Defendant now believes he is immunized from responsibility because an unenforceable contract exists between his fourteen year old son and plaintiff. Defendant is mistaken.

Hetzler v. United States (In Re Hetzler)

262 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 2001

Most courts *51 agree that a document must first qualify as a return under federal income tax law in order to qualify as a return for purposes of section 523. … “Nothing in § 523(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code suggests that a document that does not qualify as a return under the Internal Revenue Code should nonetheless qualify as a return for purposes of bankruptcy discharge.”