Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersNJ

10,000+ results

1.27s

  • IDUMONYI v. BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 16, 2022

    “Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Kim is entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • State Board of Medical Examiners v. College of Mecca of Chiropractic, Inc.

    6 N.J. Misc. 677 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 27, 1928

    Where that which is directed to be done is within the sphere of legislation, and the terms used clearly express the intent, all reasoning derived from the supposed inconvenience, or even absurdity of the result, is out of … To use the words in the attorney-general’s brief: The act of 1924, page 395, seeks to establish an educational standard for those schools or colleges proposing to train and qualify students to practice medicine and surgery

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Siriotis v. Gramuglia

    254 N.J. Super. 223 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 1991

    Tancer's medical report clearly indicates that the "mere parroting" of the Threshold Statute was not conducted. … Ledeoux, 146 A.D. 2d 764 , 537 N.Y.S.2d 72 (1989), the Court outlined what is necessary to establish a prima facie case establishing a "serious injury".

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • US Bank, N.A. v. Hough

    210 N.J. 187 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 2012

    The language of the regulation itself clearly indicates the remedy that applies when an excessive loan is secured by an affordable housing unit. … That regulation clearly states that “[a]ny loan issued in violation of [the applicable affordable housing regulations] shall be void as against public policy.”

    Cited 95 timesPublished
  • American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Director

    13 N.J. Tax 534 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 23, 1993

    The burden is upon the claimant to clearly bring himself within the exemption provisions. Ibid. … In Metromedia, supra, our Supreme Court established the guidelines in determining the requirement to adopt an administrative rule.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • In re the Civil Commitment of G.A.

    309 N.J. Super. 152 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1998

    Thus, it is clearly within a prosecutor’s power to initiate an involuntary commitment proceeding in the interest of public safety *159 and subject a released inmate to a psychiatric evaluation. … The use immunity concept, restricting the use of inculpatory statements made during a psychiatric examination, is well established. State v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • NJ Sports & Exposition Auth. v. McCrane

    119 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 15, 1971

    The conveyance of land envisioned in the act clearly meets the trust qualifications. … The Legislature alone may determine the duties and the interrelation of the public posts it establishes or authorizes to be established.

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • Essex Cty. Welfare Div. v. Harris

    189 N.J. Super. 479 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 1983

    And see L. 1983, c. 17, § 14, recognizing the scientific reliability of specific genetic testing, including the HLA test, in affirmatively establishing paternity. … NOTES [1] While the question of the retrospectivity of L. 1983, c. 17, is not directly before us, it is clearly a question which will be implicated on the remand.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • State v. Hill

    121 N.J. 150 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 1, 1990

    It would usurp the trial court’s discretion to establish a blanket policy restricting testimony that fully qualifies for admissibility under the fresh-complaint rule but is duplicative or prejudicial. … We cannot establish a blanket rule because in each case the weight of each of those variables will be different.

    Cited 101 timesPublished
  • Herman v. Herman

    17 N.J. Misc. 127 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 8, 1939

    It is petitioner’s admitted purpose.in pressing her present application to establish the arrearages as a debt against defendant, upon which she may take out process of execution. … To grant petitioner’s application would clearly violate this condition. Although defendant’s common law obligation to support petitioner still persists, it has remained unliquidated as to amount.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • O'Neill v. City of Bayonne

    99 N.J.L. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1924

    or which may be established for the police force in such municipality.” … L. 678 (at p. 681). *434 Prima facie the prosecutor was a de jure officer until the contrary is established by competent proof.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Avallone v. Avallone

    275 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 1994

    Avallone, his former spouse, pursuant to the provisions of an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). … Finally, we reiterate the principle enunciated in Landwehr, supra, that `the burden of establishing ... immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset will rest upon the spouse who asserts it.'

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • ANTHONY PACE, SR. VS. TOWNSHIP OF NUTLEY(L-5518-13, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

    New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2017

    violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" … "The dispositive point in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether a reasonable officer in the same situation clearly would understand that his actions were unlawful."

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • BRUSCIANELLI v. HICKS

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2021

    ” and second, the court must determine “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … State Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity consists largely of legal boilerplate.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Sedore v. Recorder Pub. Co.

    315 N.J. Super. 137 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1998

    It was clearly erroneous for the trial court to have based its ruling on the need to make that determination. … be adequate to overcome the qualified privileges which defendants are entitled to claim.

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • Borough of Maywood v. United States

    679 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

    Since the complaint, as well as the record as a whole, fails to reveal the existence of a lien held by the government, the Borough has failed to establish that the Congress has waived sovereign immunity on this statutory … Even if reasonable, the decisions are null and void in the face of such a clearly conflicting Congressional directive.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Cooper v. Mayor

    299 N.J. Super. 174 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1997

    All plaintiffs qualify as “Department Heads.” … See N.J.S.A. 59:13-3 (providing that “[t]he State of New Jersey ... waives its sovereign immunity from liability arising out of ... a contract implied in fact”).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp.

    705 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 10, 1989

    Plaintiff may establish a prima fa-cie case by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was dismissed despite being qualified; (4) was replaced … It is also undisputed that plaintiff was qualified for the position from which he was terminated. Plaintiff has clearly met his burden of establishing a prima facie case.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Perlberg v. Geminder

    20 N.J. Super. 191 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1952

    There is nothing beyond his own claim to ten years' experience as an executive to sustain his contention that he qualified as an expert. … The qualifications of experts are left to the discretion of the court, and its decision is conclusive unless clearly *197 shown to be erroneous as a matter of law. Rempfer v.

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Torsiello v. Whitehall Laboratories

    165 N.J. Super. 311 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1979

    As noted in Cepeda, supra, 76 N.J. at 168-169 , the black letter is explicated, qualified and supplemented by its 17 lettered comments, some of which have become fully incorporated into the fabric of the law of this jurisdiction … Appellee had taken an active part in setting up the mass immunization clinic program for the society and well knew that the program did not make any such provision, either in advertising prior to the clinics or at the clinics

    Cited 44 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.