Case law

Witkowski v. Thomas J. Lipton, Inc.

136 N.J. 385 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1994

that the employer is clearly waiving its right to discharge without cause”). … It was clearly reasonable for Lipton employees to expect that if an employee successfully completes the three-month “trial” period and “qualifie[s]” as a “regular employee,” he or she then would be considered a “regular employee

In Re Vitabile

188 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 25, 1983

They assert that the hearing contains all the characteristics of a criminal trial or a grand jury investigation since, among other features, witnesses have a right to counsel, may be granted immunity, and can invoke their … Therefore, it is clearly a part of a criminal action.

ALFORD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 20, 2026

“[F]or the defendants to succeed on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal based on absolute immunity … the defense must clearly appear on the face of the complaint.” Wilson v. … Plaintiff contends qualified not absolute immunity applies to administrative, executive or investigative acts by NJSPB, which includes Defendants interrogating him about his lawsuit, applying false factors to

Gottdiener v. Township of Roxbury

2 N.J. Tax 206 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 9, 1981

Secondly, it clearly appears that, even standing alone, the 1971 payment of $409.60 is insufficient. … In sum, in attempting to prove the existence of such a sale, the proofs must clearly preponderate in favor of its existence. That was not the case here.

Stump v. Whibco

314 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 3, 1998

Considerations of sovereign immunity also justified the principle that "the king established his own rules for litigation." … The wire mesh fence clearly did not.

Hillman/Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists

169 N.J. Super. 259 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1979

The Court observed that the purpose of the regulatory statute was patently not to immunize licensed dispensers against legitimate competition, thereby granting them exclusive control of the market. Id. at 231. … A. 52:17B-127, but the regulatory hierarchy specified by the Legislature clearly supports the primacy of consumer interests over the self-interest of the regulated profession.

Capua v. City of Plainfield

643 F. Supp. 1507 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 1986

Courts have clearly established that individuals retain an expectation of privacy and a right to be free from government intrusion in the integrity of their own bodies. See Schmerber v. … Clearly, no one can deny that the public has an interest in the integrity of its fire fighting forces.

KJ Ex Rel. Lowry v. DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAM.

363 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2005

The rule seeks to screen out claims for which there is clearly no remedy, or where the plaintiff has no right to assert. Port Auth. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir.1999). … This immunity for licensing activities is a narrow exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the TCA. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 59:2-5 (1992).

Den ex dem. Southard v. Central Railroad

26 N.J.L. 13 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1856

It is no less the dictate of reason and justice, than of sound law, that courts should require the violation of a condition which involves a forfeiture to be clearly established. … If, however, the evidence had • clearly established a breach of the condition and a consequent forfeiture of the estafe, the plaintiff could , not-have availed herself of the forfeiture.

Pelose v. Green

222 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1988

That section assumes a nexus between the increased risk and the negligence has already been established — it does not create that nexus. Here, as noted, there was no evidence Dr. … It finds particular application where a failure to diagnose or a misdiagnosis clearly delayed proper treatment, but the resulting harm cannot be quantified.

Carroll v. Delaware River Port Authority

160 F. Supp. 3d 771 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2015

Rather than arguing otherwise, DRPA argues that Carroll cannot establish his prima facie case because he undisputedly was not physically able (i.e., qualified) to perform the duties of Sergeant. … The Third Circuit has clearly set forth the two-step legal standard to be applied.

CONROY, BY AND THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, JENNEY FERGUSON v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants collectively assert that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … Turning then to Warden Smith, government officials are generally immune from suit for civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Pagelow v. Flemming

189 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 1960

The application to establish a period of disability was denied by the Bureau on the ground that the medical evidence submitted failed to establish the inability of the applicant to engage in “any substantial gainful activity … It clearly appears from his decision that the conclusion was based upon a factual determination that the plaintiff was not suffering from a “disability” as defined in Sections 216 (i) and 223 of the Act, supra.

NJ Shore Builders v. Mayor

234 N.J. Super. 619 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1989

He testified that new homes use more water than older ones in an effort to establish new lawns and landscaping. … Clearly a moratorium alone would not suffice if there was a health emergency.

United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

416 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 1976

Sec. 814 ) and upon their filing and approval by that agency, were immune from the antitrust laws. … Most of the opinions were qualified to start with, and were further degraded by the testimony in court.

Doe v. Banos

713 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 2010

Nor did defendants attempt to quell John Doe’s opposition, offering him the option of qualifying his signature with “full reservation of rights.” … Therefore, John Doe has failed to establish a threat of irreparable harm justifying preliminary injunctive relief. 15 3.

In Re Masiello

25 N.J. 590 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1958

20, 1944 says: "This statement of eligibility is valid until April 20, 1948." *598 However, we have concluded that it is not necessary to pass upon these two issues because in our judgment another ground exists which is clearly … N.J.S.A. 18:3-2( e ). *602 Provision is then made for the establishment of a State Board of Examiners.

Rogers v. Colt

21 N.J.L. 704 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1848

There is no other language in the instrument clearly shewing a different intent, by which the natural import of these terms is altered, or their effect qualified. 4. … If so, he clearly erred. The appropriate province of the court and of the jury are totally distinct.

Hk v. Dmahs

379 N.J. Super. 321 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 2005

Therefore, under the then existing income-based test, he qualified for Medicaid. … , and clearly in need of support.

Alexandria Township v. Orban

21 N.J. Tax 298 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 4, 2004

Pio Costa did not hold that the land was qualified for farmland in 1997. … The judge in Pio Costa did not consider the language of N.J.A.C. 18:15-6.2(a)(6) which clearly requires a written approved woodland management plan.