Case law

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. Miller

64 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 1960

The State says, in its answering brief, that "the opinion of the court below clearly establishes that the basis of its *265 finding of guilty rested upon `very heavy testimony of the people who observed' defendant rather … He hasn't been qualified, and there is no evidence as to how he arrived at the result, except that the result was .21. The Court: I'll deny your motion." *267 The State contends that these objections came too late.

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.

Gannon v. American Home Products, Inc.

211 N.J. 454 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 15, 2012

so that he may know of past immunizations.” … They must not regard those considerations to be a license to substitute generalized concerns about the imposition of collateral estoppel when the clearly established elements have been met.

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."

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

Wadlow v. Wadlow

200 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1985

The record clearly supports the trial judge's finding that the account was established by plaintiff's parents and managed solely by her father. … It was segregated throughout the marriage and clearly was never intended to benefit the defendant. The value of plaintiff's interest in the account was, thus, immune from distribution. Cf. Painter v.

Consolidated Express, Inc. v. New York Shipping Ass'n

452 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 11, 1978

As such, they were immune from antitrust attack. … Pennington and Jewel Tea establish that contracts addressing mandatory subjects of collective bargaining and negotiated in the union’s self-interest are immune from antitrust attack, at least where the intent of the parties

Ahammed v. Logandro

394 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2007

Evringham's March 22, 2006 deposition testimony establishing plaintiff's and defendant's co-employee status followed. … This is particularly true because the uncontradicted deposition testimony of Evringham clearly establishes (1) that neither man was an independent contractor but each was a W-2 wage earning employee of Domino's and (2) that

SYMS v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2022

At the summary judgment stage, “the officer bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to qualified immunity.” … is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

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.”

State v. Furey

128 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1974

Super. 515 (Law Div. 1967), is clearly misplaced and neither provides any support for defendant's argument. … While Viscomi was not indicted, and testified for the State under a grant of immunity, nevertheless, he was named in the indictment as a co-conspirator, and the evidence established that he was involved with defendant and

Hubner v. Spring Valley Equestrian Center

203 N.J. 184 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2010

It was accompanied by a Sponsor’s Statement explaining that its purpose was “to establish by statute the responsibilities and liabilities of those individuals who engage in equine activities.” … Other factual circumstances, however, are not so clearly within this exception.

State v. Wanczyk

196 N.J. Super. 397 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1984

adopted the Rules of Evidence, but also by virtue of the fact that the Rule permits an expert to give his opinion based on matters that are not in evidence such as his own observations or hearsay. [3] The Rule, therefore, clearly … Second, the handler, once qualified as an expert, must give testimony regarding the particular dog that he used and the facts.

Campagna v. American Cyanamid Co.

337 N.J. Super. 530 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2001

To induce immunity, an OPV utilizes attenuated or weakened poliovirus to mildly infect the person vaccinated. Ibid. … Ibid. *1000 Defendant's OPV, Orimune OPV, is a trivalent vaccine that provides immunity against all three types of polio.

Providence Pediatric Medical Daycare, Inc. v. Alaigh

112 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2015

Defendants assert that the claims against the individual defendants in their personal capacity are subject to dismissal under the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Defs.’ Br. 17-19.) … Clearly, these applications were filed after the moratorium became effective on November 3, 2003.

Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Etc. v. State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 2025

to "qualified immunity." … constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity."