Case law

Gilbert v. Gladden

87 N.J. 275 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 29, 1981

We disagree, at least as regards the immunity of Miller and Gladden. … If immunity did attach, it is conceivable that legislative action that is executed by legislative employees would be immune from judicial review in spite of its effect on individual rights.

Batten by Batten v. Bobo

218 N.J. Super. 589 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1986

Rand, supra , decision, which established social host liability for serving liquor to a visibly intoxicated minor for his subsequent negligent acts. … The court in Rappaport noted this State has recognized a clearly-stated policy that it opposes drinking by minors. N.J.S.A. 33:1-81.

Vavoulakis v. New Jersey Division of Taxation

12 N.J. Tax 318 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 11, 1992

Thus, only residents with separate, not shared, facilities qualify. … Clearly, on this point, the Director offers the only suitable construction.

DiGiovanni v. Pessel

104 N.J. Super. 550 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1969

The foundation upon which this extraordinary privilege ( i.e., immunity where the three elements just mentioned have been established) rests is that the private prosecution of public offenses is regarded as essential to the … The source and basis of this privilege is clearly articulated in Restatement, Torts 2 d, § 37 comment ( b ) (1965): "One who institutes criminal proceedings against another intends to cause an arrest which is the normal incident

Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc.

214 N.J. 419 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2013

] businesses from offering or using provisions in consumer contracts, warranties, notices and signs that violate any clearly established right of a *432 consumer.” Ibid. … In other words, the proposed legislation did not recognize any new consumer rights but merely imposed an obligation on sellers to acknowledge clearly established consumer rights and provided remedies for posting or inserting

In Re Harvard Industries, Inc.

324 B.R. 238 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2005

Pursuant to the Plan, certain assets and causes of action were assigned to various trusts that were to established under the Plan. … That limited focus is misplaced given that the plain language of the statute clearly provides that product liability also includes damages from loss of the use of property.

Cooper v. Hutchinson

88 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 1950

No person is immune from prosecution in good faith for his alleged criminal acts. … Wilson, 307 U.S. 268 , 59 S.Ct. 872 , 83 L.Ed. 1281 is, as they state, an instance where this position was established by the United States Supreme Court.

Board of Education of Township of Willingboro v. Employees Ass'n of Willingboro Schools

178 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 1981

It is to be observed at the outset that the parity clause involved the health insurance benefit program, a clearly negotiable condition of employment. … The contract in question qualifies for arbitration. The only period in question commenced February 1, 1978 and concluded June 30, 1978, entirely before the pronouncement in Plainfield. Affirmed.

State v. Brown

53 N.J.L. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1890

In respect to this claim for immunity, there are a number •of cases in the courts of Iowa, Kentucky and Nebraska in which the invalidity of such a tax is adjudged. … The second ground for the vacation of these taxes pressed is, that the assessor and collector were not legally elected and qualified to act, and that, therefore, the taxes were assessable. *167 by the township officers.

Clark Thread Co. v. William Clark Co.

55 N.J. Eq. 658 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1897

The answer of the judges was that (apart from the fact that the parties in the two proceedings were not the same) there was no estoppel because, in the ecclesiastical court, the sentence had only a qualified effect, viz., … afford no immunity to the principal for any act done by another agent.

BAYNARD v. MONA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2022

Qualified Immunity Detective Sapienza also argues he is entitled to qualified immunity. (Mov. Br. at 36–38). … Accordingly, the law does not clearly establish that the particular circumstances of this case render Baynard’s arrest unlawful. Detective Sapienza is therefore, at a minimum, entitled to qualified immunity. IV.

Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Open MRI of Morris & Essex, LP

356 N.J. Super. 567 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2002

Prior to discussing whether or not this court has the authority to vacate an arbitration award under applicable law, it must first be established whether or not the determination of the arbitrator was clearly incorrect under … The cases cited previously clearly establish that the correct legal rule in situations such as in the present case is that if an MRI facility does not possess an ambulatory care license when the subject services were rendered

Daughters of Miriam Home v. LEGALIZED GAMES, ETC.

42 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 1956

*415 The petitioners have the burden of establishing that this was palpably the legislative intention. … The arguments that the rules deny due process and equal protection of the laws and that they establish an arbitrary classification of qualified lessors, discriminatory to such lessors as the State Garden, are rejected.

State v. Tremblay

185 N.J. Super. 137 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1982

penalty does not apply if an earlier conviction is for the disorderly person offenses of possession of marijuana, [4] or for being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance. [5] On the other hand, he would clearly … qualify as a persistent criminal offender if the present possession offense is the kind of "crime" referred to in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a).

Caruso v. United States

236 F. Supp. 88 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 25, 1964

Legal expenses particularly qualify under this preservation theory of business deductions. … Clearly, on the facts before this court, Caruso was protecting his eligibility status.

Metalsalts Corp. v. Weiss

70 N.J. Super. 355 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1961

The mere fact that Doherty makes such allegations does not, however, establish that said statements were in fact made in connection with such a proceeding. … I am also of the opinion that Doherty's defense of qualified privilege cannot possibly constitute sufficient grounds upon which to base summary judgment in his favor.

Green Pond Corp. v. Township of Rockaway

2 N.J. Tax 273 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 26, 1981

If all firewood payments were received in 1974 the same average is established. … Although plaintiffs would clearly fail an exclusivity test, resort to such a standard is unnecessary. They do not satisfy the test of predominance established in East Orange.

Smith v. Smith

54 N.J. Eq. 1 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1895

the use contemplated is definitely ascertained and is purely a charitable one, and hence is not invalidated by any indefiniteness in the will as to the individual recipients of the bounty; that the class of recipients is clearly … It is apparent from this statement of the attitude of the parties, that the first question presented, is, whether the intention of the testator was to qualify the character of the school by a restrictive'scheme so that unless

N.A.R., Inc., Etc. v. Eastern Outdoor Furnishings

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2025

Nonetheless, it is clear the record—even when viewed in a light most favorable to Eastern Outdoor— fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a qualifying "written arrangement." … Summary judgment on this pivotal element was appropriately granted, and there is no need to have a jury attempt to make the legal assessment 4 of whether a qualifying written arrangement was established.

Jp v. Dmahs

392 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 2007

To qualify for the exclusion, the trust shall contain the following provisions: i. The trust . . . shall be identified as an OBRA '93 trust established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4)(A). [ N.J.A.C. 10:71-4.11(g).] … Ibarra, 746 F.Supp. 19 (D.Colo.1990), Miller trusts permit individuals to qualify for Medicaid benefits in states that have income caps for Medicaid eligibility.