Case law

Greenberg v. Camden County Vocational & Technical Schools

310 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1998

To establish a prima facie case under LAD, a plaintiff must show: (1) that she is a member of a class protected by the anti-discrimination law; (2) that she was qualified for the position or rank sought; (3) that she was … The argument on behalf of the defendant is that she was considered not qualified.

Dasrath v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

228 F. Supp. 2d 531 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 2002

Immunity under 49 U.S.C. § 44941 Continental’s contention that it and its employees are immune from liability under § 44941 appears not to have any relevance to the asserted claims and accordingly does not provide any basis … to establish the practice against which an injunction is sought is not fatal to an organization’s standing.

Phibro Animal Health Corporation v. National Union

446 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 2016

But that possibility does not establish that there was no property damage. The point is refuted by an affidavit10 from Dr. … Only third-party property qualifies as "impaired property" under that definition.

In the Matter of the Implementation of L. 2012, C. 24

443 N.J. Super. 73 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2015

A-4565-13T3 IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF L. 2012, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION C. 24, N.J.S.A. 48:3-87(t) - A PROCEEDING TO ESTABLISH A November 12, 2015 PROGRAM TO PROVIDE SRECs … Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:2-46, this court may review any order of the board and . . . set aside such order in whole or in part when it clearly appears that there was no evidence

In Re Napp Technologies, Inc. Litigation

338 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 2000

However, the privilege is qualified, not absolute. … Since H & R has not established a community "with the goals and concerns that underlie the journalist's privilege," it may not successfully invoke it. *283 IV H & R is not entitled to assert the qualified First Amendment

Karmazin v. Pennsylvania RR

82 N.J. Super. 123 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1964

Defendant strenuously objected at the trial to plaintiff's asserted justification for submission of the proof, and we think it was clearly right. … On principle, this rule clearly applies to a station platform, as here.

GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2022

immunity in this matter in any event as it has not been clearly established that prisoners have a right of personal, telephonic access to family court matters in which they are represented by counsel. … Dist., 800 F.3d 633, 637-40 Gd Cir. 2015) (civil rights defendant entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged constitutional violation is not “clearly established” by Supreme Court precedent or robust consensus

State v. Haskins

131 N.J. 643 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1993

In Romano , we explained that the reliability of a measuring device need not be established “beyond a reasonable doubt,” id. at 89 , 474 A.2d 1 ; conditions of admissibility need only be “clearly established.” … If jurors are qualified to make a comparison of handwriting with which they are not familiar, they would be qualified to make a comparison of tape measures with which they are most likely familiar.

Moore Co. v. Federal Metal Bed Co.

110 N.J. Eq. 217 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1932

I am not aware of any warrant in law for the appointment of a receiver by a bankruptcy court in cases of either voluntary or involuntary bankruptcjr until after adjudication except in eases where it is clearly established … Crosby Stores, Inc., supra, is clearly manifest herein.

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2019

Qualified Immunity Government officials enjoy qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether a state actor is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).

T.M. v. R.M.W.

456 N.J. Super. 446 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 2017

While one date is clearly insufficient, S.K. , 426 N.J. … Likewise, pain caused by repeated strikes qualifies as bodily injury. State ex rel. T.S. , 413 N.J. Super. 540 , 543, 997 A.2d 233 (App. Div. 2010).

White v. Violent Crimes Compensation Board

76 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 25, 1978

In its order of denial, the Board observed that had plaintiff’s claim been *373 filed in timely fashion she would have qualified for compensation. … Unlike claims under the Tort Claims Act, applications for compensation from the Board do not implicate the well-established principle that conditions attached to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed

ROSE BENGEL VS. HOLIDAY CITY AT BERKELEY FIRST AID SQUAD, INC. (L-0192-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2020

This test recognizes that even a person who acted negligently is entitled to a qualified immunity, if he acted in an objectively reasonable manner. [Ibid. … On appeal, plaintiffs appear to have abandoned their prior claim that defendants were not responding to a medical emergency to qualify for immunity.

ESSENTIAL SAV. AND LOAN ASSN. v. Howell

105 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1969

The Legislature *435 has thus clearly evidenced its intention that the words "suitable substitute therefor" shall have reference to the office previously operated by the association whose assets have been purchased, rather … By enacting section 27 the Legislature was not merely authorizing the establishment of another branch.

State v. JF

262 N.J. Super. 539 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 1993

Accordingly, the issue raised by defendant concerning the parole disqualifier is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Such an order would clearly be one banishing defendant from the State; and its validity would be a question of first impression in New Jersey.

VEGA BY MUNIZ v. Piedilato

154 N.J. 496 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 1998

The Appellate Division held that plaintiff had established that defendants knew or should have known children were trespassing on the roof but that plaintiff had failed to establish that the air shaft posed an unreasonable … Although the complaint alleges that Samuel was walking near the air shaft, the undisputed evidence from the one witness who clearly observed the fall is that the accident occurred when Samuel tripped while attempting to make

State v. Gilmore

199 N.J. Super. 389 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1985

This does not mean that the members of such a group are immune from peremptory challenges: individual members thereof may still be struck on grounds of specific bias, as defined herein. … Blacks clearly constitute a protected group. Invidious discrimination cannot be condoned because it is not only injurious to the individual, but to the community as a whole. In Strauder v.

United Jersey Bank v. Director, Div. of Taxation

12 N.J. Tax 516 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 20, 1992

Under this definition, checks and deposit slips clearly qualify as “paper products and household paper.” … Clearly, plaintiff qualifies as a “retailer of litter-generating products” for purposes of N.J.S.A. 13:1E-99.1a.

PARNELL v. JACKSON TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held liable for damages when their conduct does not violate a citizen’s clearly established rights. … The Court also finds that there is a clearly established right that could preclude the defense of qualified immunity if the facts are determined in Plaintiff's favor.

Superior Life, Health & Accident Insurance v. Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission

127 N.J.L. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 21, 1942

We think this is so despite the fact that he was obliged to obtain a license from the state to qualify him to sell insurance. … That fact alone does not establish his status as one engaged in an independently established business, &c., any more than one employed as a driver of an automobile with & license to drive would be.