Case law

State v. Lee

188 N.J. Super. 432 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1982

Michael O’Donovan was qualified as an expert on weapons and gave his opinion that the taped scissors were useless for their traditional purpose and in the taped condition became a “stiletto.” … Thus, the judge clearly charged the jury as to the required statutory elements making up an offense under N.J. S.A. 2C:39-5(d).

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Township of Saddle River

96 N.J.L. 40 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1921

Chief Justice Chase in the Thomson case: “We perceive no limits to the principle of exemption which the complainants seek to establish.” … To us it is inconceivable that congress ever intended any such drastic and all-pervading immunity from taxation.

Gibilterra v. Rosemawr Homes, Inc.

19 N.J. 166 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1955

liability might rest upon a jury finding of a failure by United and Bayley, assuming the trench was dug by Bayley in the continuance of the general hire, to employ standard methods in digging it, provided expert opinion establishes … R. 4:16-2 expressly immunizes from production or inspection “the conclusions of an expert” (except the report of a physician as limited by R.

Brown v. Delaware River Port Authority

10 F. Supp. 3d 556 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2014

Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. The elements of a prima facie case depend on the facts of the particular case, and it cannot be established on a one-size-fits-all basis. … June 27, 2013), which holds that in order to present a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position at issue; (3)

Lehrer v. Board of Adjustment of Newark

137 N.J.L. 100 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 9, 1948

A qualified real estate expert testified. “Question: Mr. Gill, does this property lend itself to a gasoline service station? … True, the decision of the Board of Adjustment is presumably correct, but its decision will not stand where, as here, it is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

State v. Pinkston

233 N.J. 495 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 2018

The first noted that when the police tried to conduct the motor vehicle stop, defendant's car "began to slowly travel," and the police "were unable to clearly identify the make and model of the" car because of low visibility … The State and the Attorney General contend that defendants possess only a qualified right in light of the history of the CJRA.

Kraivanger v. Radburn Ass'n

335 N.J. Super. 169 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2000

The respondent, Radburn Association, is a non-profit corporation established in 1929 to administer certain restrictive covenants running with property located within the community. … The one-day’s pay for participation in the training program was clearly some consideration, and was regarded as such by respondent when it required petitioner to file employment documents, including a W-4 form.

State v. Kadelak

280 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1995

This law permitted the Director of DMV to license and supervise qualified private garages as Re-Inspection Centers (RICs) on a trial basis. … However, the empirical data for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 clearly demonstrate that the need for roadside inspections is substantial.

Den ex dem. Wortendyk v. Wortendyk

7 N.J.L. 363 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1800

Further, if the testator did design to establish that equality, at least in favor of his daughters, can it be .presumed that he would have left his intention veiled with so much apparent caution ? … The conclusion flowing from these circumstances is strongly corroborative of the idea, that the qualifying clause was not designed by tho testator to apply to the whole will.

Sanducci v. City of Hoboken

315 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1998

Ray, 386 U.S. 547 , 87 S.Ct. 1213 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 288 (1967), the Court recognized that an official could defend against a section 1983 action by asserting a defense of qualified immunity. … The record clearly indicates that an "on call" judge was telephoned and that bail was set immediately.

ROBERT BRYANT VS. CAMDEN COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (L-3505-15, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2020

Therefore, an officer accused of false arrest can assert qualified immunity to defend himself against an N.J.S.A. 10:6-2 claim if his "conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … [B]eing wrong is not enough to destroy qualified immunity.

Shreve v. Shreve

17 N.J. Eq. 487 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1864

If this is the correct theory, the disposition which has been made of the interest in question is clearly erroneous. As simple personalty, it cannot rank with the specific gifts to legatees and devisees. … The specialty creditor can look to the land as well as the personal assets, and there seems to be no reason why, in regard to this class of debts, the one kind of property should have an immunity which the other does not

State v. Pennington

301 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1997

These first-degree kidnapping convictions were established by minimal facts necessary to establish the element of restraint: proof that defendant tied up the victims in order to insure his getaway. … In effect, he has been sentenced just as if his offense and record qualified him as the most serious repeat offender.

Sanzari v. Rosenfeld

34 N.J. 128 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1961

he in fact did establish a standard of care, and (3) it was unnecessary to establish a standard of care in this case. … judge’s determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert may he reviewed, and, if clearly erroneous, may be set aside.

Snyder v. Township of Sparta

16 N.J. Tax 321 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 25, 1997

Jackson Tp., 11 N.J.Tax 97, 99 (App.Div.1989) (holding that the tax assessor has the burden of proof to establish that a change in actual use has occurred). … This statute clearly contemplates that each assessor will act independently in imposing an assessment on the portion of the property located in that assessor’s taxing district.

RAMZIDDIN v. ANGELO J. ONFRI, ESQ.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2022

Plaintiff argues that MCPO Defendants acted outside their “judicial capacity” and are not entitled to qualified immunity. a. … By acting as prosecutors and advocates for the State, both Onofri and Hadley have overcome the presumption of qualified immunity.

State v. Alexander

7 N.J. 585 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 24, 1951

They do not confer any further rights, privileges or immunities upon the individual but are designed to safeguard those rights by making the violation of them a criminal offense. … When a jury in a murder case retires to its deliberations under instructions that it can return a verdict of either first- or second-degree murder, it must be clearly instructed that the intent to kill is not by itself sufficient

Mohamad Khodair, Etc. v. Llanfair House Care & Rehabilitation Center

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 2025

See N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3 (establishing two-year limitations period for WDA claims); N.J.S.A. 2A:15-3 (establishing two-year limitations period for SA claims, with exceptions not applicable here); N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 (providing … The court concluded plaintiff alleged insufficient facts to establish gross negligence or any of the other exceptions to immunity.

Bergen Commercial Bank v. Sisler

157 N.J. 188 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 24, 1999

A prima facie cause of action under the LAD is established when [t]he plaintiff [ ] demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) applied and was qualified for a position … An employee can demonstrate “background circumstances” sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination by establishing either that the plaintiff was better qualified for the position than the minority candidate selected

State v. Patton

256 N.J. Super. 413 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1992

IV On defendant’s Law Division appeal, the judge acknowledged that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10c “clearly compels a person to furnish incriminating evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment.” … In Marchetti , the United States Supreme Court rejected a similar invitation to engraft use immunity to the federal wager *422 ing tax statutes.