Case law

MAGLIOLI v. ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION I

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2020

immune (a slip and fall at a medical facility). … The plain language may be set aside only if strict application would produce an absurd result, one that is clearly contrary to legislative intent.

Giovine v. Giovine

284 N.J. Super. 3 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 11, 1995

Nonetheless, the Court concluded that interspousal immunity in all tort actions would thereafter be abolished. Id. at 556 , 388 A. 2d 951 . … However, in order to qualify for a jury trial, the claimant must establish by written expert opinion that proofs will be introduced at trial demonstrating that the injury is serious and significant, resulting in permanent

Johnson v. Johnson

320 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1999

The Annuity Fund is established and maintained pursuant to the provisions of ERISA, 29 U.S.C.A. § 1001 to -1461, and the IRC, 26 U.S.C.A. § 401 to -419A. … QDRO's must meet certain requirements for exemption from ERISA's antialienation provision: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— (i) the name and

Anderson v. AJ FRIEDMAN SUPPLY

416 N.J. Super. 46 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 20, 2010

Once the ability to foresee harm was established, fairness and justness extended the duty to the wife. Ibid. … She refused, reasoning that the jury could not allocate fault to Exxon as Bonnie's employer, because Exxon was immune from suit pursuant to the WCA.

UNDERWOOD v. CAMDEN COUNTY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, all Defendants will be subject to the qualified immunity standard.

Parsons v. United States Postal Service

380 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 11, 1974

In so doing, the policy was established that delivery to new areas which qualify for “city delivery” should normally be by motorized carrier to curb-line or “cluster boxes”; door-to-door delivery was limited to homes with … The determination to deliver on a door-to-door or “cluster box” basis is clearly aimed at achieving the most efficient use of postal employees.

Mullen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

100 F. Supp. 2d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 1999

The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, was not unconditional. … Jersey City, 140 N.J.Super. 96 , 100-103, 355 A.2d 214 (Law Div.1976) (“It is a firmly established rule in American jurisprudence that acts in derogation of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed and that provisions

Armano v. Martin

157 F. Supp. 3d 392 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2016

“It also necessarily implies such degree of misconduct or. culpability on the part of the office holder as clearly implicates the public interest in precluding his continuance in that particular office.” Id. … whether absolute immunity applies.

State v. Browne

86 N.J. Super. 217 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 20, 1965

Rep. 250 (1609), which arose out of a libel in verse directed against a deceased Archbishop of Canterbury and a living Bishop, the common law of criminal libel was established. … The courts recognize "a privilege or immunity which may be absolute or qualified; the difference is that the absolute privilege [ e.g., judicial proceedings or legislative debate] affords complete protection whereas the qualified

BATISTA v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2020

Moreover, the individual Defendants here are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability for damages so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established … A plaintiff can overcome the protections of qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.” Id.

State v. Singleton

211 N.J. 157 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 30, 2012

In the latter circumstance, we have established a stringent standard, one that requires the defendant to demonstrate that the failure to include the charge was plain error and therefore clearly capable of producing an unjust … Utilizing our well-established test, the question is whether the evidence in the record “clearly indicates the appropriateness” of the Worlock charge.

Society of Holy Child Jesus v. City of Summit

418 N.J. Super. 365 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2011

Noting that the taxpayers’ property “clearly qualified for farmlands assessment,” the Court reversed the decision of the Tax Court that denied the assessment because “the taxpayers’ use of their property for the production … As we noted early on, the Statute clearly and unambiguously contains no such requirement. Recently, in Presbyterian Home at Pennington, Inc. v.

United States v. Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties

997 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 1998

After reviewing the qualifications submitted by vendors, establish a list of responding vendors and designate those vendors which are qualified to provide the wastewater treatment service, (Id at 58:27-7); 4. … The Agreement clearly states a fixed term of duration and should be construed as such.

Hill v. Dobin

358 B.R. 130 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 2006

Factual determinations, however, may be set aside by the district court only if they are clearly erroneous. See Fed. Rule Bankr.Proc. 8013; J.P. Fyfe, Inc. of Fla., 891 F.2d at 69 . … The debtor bears the burden of establishing that these requirements are met. In re Adams, 302 B.R. 535, 540 (6th Cir. BAP 2003).

Countiss v. Trenton State College

77 N.J. 590 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 12, 1978

Moreover, it was established that the men’s season was only two weeks longer than the women’s and that Countiss was required to coach both the women’s junior varsity and the varsity basketball teams in her second year and … foundation for the College’s requirement of significant progress toward a doctorate for tenure seekers and Countiss’s lack thereof, strongly spell out a clearly mistaken exercise of judgment by the Division in awarding Countiss

Hahnemann Univ. Hosp. v. Dudnick

292 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 1996

. *15 Defendant's contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). I. … Plaintiff clearly established the reliability of the bill. The burden then shifted to defendant to offer some evidence that the bill was not reliable. Defendant failed to do so.

Patton v. Texas Co.

13 N.J. Super. 42 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1951

The proofs, however, show clearly that the step structure was part of the premises demised. The determinative facts are revealed in the parties’ own statements of the extent of the leasehold. … The landowner’s immunity is no different whether the condition is deemed a nuisance or not.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. L.V.

382 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2005

However, as the mother’s antibodies die off and the baby’s immune system matures and produces antibodies to environmental antigens, the child can ultimately test negative for the virus. This is known as seroreversion. … According to that court, the benefit of the proposed treatment was not clearly established by expert testimony. In re Nikolas E., 720 A.2d 562 (Me.1998). Here, DYFS’s expert established the treatment benefit.

Ajay Nutrition Foods, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

378 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 1974

It is thus clear under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Co., supra; Dalehite v. United States, supra; Blackmar v. … The instant complaint is clearly grounded on a libel and not a negligence theory. 13 .

Britney Motil v. Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2024

Defendant posits the declaration and UIM step-down endorsement "clearly and unambiguously demonstrate[d] that [plaintiff's] recovery of UIM benefits was expressly limited." We disagree. … Specifically, the policy could have clarified that the only qualifying "household" was the residence of the named insured and an identified alternate address was excluded.