Case law

Ramapo River Reserve Homeowners Ass'n v. Borough of Oakland

186 N.J. 439 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 13, 2006

It’s clearly not identical, but it’s as close as you can come. … Neither the Borough nor Baker disputes that the Homeowners Association qualifies as "qualified private community."

Schmalz v. Wooley

43 L.R.A. 86 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 1898

They clearly indicate that the subject of legislation is trade-marks and labels and that the purpose is to protect them. … This connection is as clearly one for business purposes as is that of members in a partnership or of stockholders in a corporation.

State v. Baynes

287 N.J. Super. 467 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 25, 1995

Specifically, "a defendant must `clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's refusal to sanction admission into [a PTI] program was based on a patent and gross abuse of his discretion ' before a court [can] suspend … appears that the policy enunciated by the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office concerning "stern punishment" for school zone offenses is not consistently followed and therefore should not be relied upon to deny this otherwise qualified

Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc.

181 N.J. 102 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 2004

The Legislature clearly knew how to impose full responsibility on a defendant joined with an insolvent tortfeasor. … As the Appellate Division correctly noted, “Horsman was not statutorily immune from a negligence suit at the time of the accident----[and] only became immune after he discharged his debt in bankruptcy.”

Wrightstown Borough v. Medved

4 N.J. Tax 582 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 20, 1982

The language utilized clearly establishes an intent to limit the benefits thereof to widows. By its failure to employ terms such as “spouse” or “widower,” widowers were specifically not included. … Nor was there any provision to continue the exemption of a qualified totally disabled veteran who died after his active duty in time of war by extending the exemption to his widow.

Wanaque Borough Sewerage Authority v. Township of West Milford

144 N.J. 564 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 26, 1996

Pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 , 1491, Congress has waived sovereign immunity with respect to actions under express or implied contracts. … The relationship among the parties to the WVRSA is defined clearly by statute.

Kazala v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

12 N.J. 75 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 1953

A. 43 :21 — 25 et seq., provides for the establishment by employers of private plans for the payment of disability benefits in lieu of the benefits of the state plan .established by the statute. … The Booth and Gross cases, supra, however, dealt with specific contractual language clearly related to the insured’s employment and therefore are not applicable here.

R.S. v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services and Union County Board of Social Services

434 N.J. Super. 250 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2014

See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 10:71-2.1 to -2.16 (establishing application process); N.J.A.C. 10:71-3.1 to -3.16 (establishing eligibility factors). … The record clearly supports the Board's calculation of D.S.'

Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M.

157 N.J. 602 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 23, 1999

That purpose was clearly set forth by the Legislature in the statement attached to L. 1974, c. 49, codified as N.J.S.A 2A:18-61.1: *615 At present, there are no limitations imposed by statute upon the reasons a landlord may … found that imposing state-law liability was completely consistent “with the primary purpose of the FDA to promote and protect the health of the citizens of the United States,” id. at 154 , 592 A.2d 1176 , observing that “immunizing

Balazinski v. Lebid

65 N.J. Super. 483 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 15, 1961

Clearly, the County Court judgment in the will contest did not make the present title dispute res adjudicata. … Her personal presence before the Russian court and her testimony established that she was still living.

State v. Otis Elevator Co.

12 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 1953

The Congress alone may waive or qualify the immunity of the national government from a judgment for costs. Reeside v. Walker, 11 How. 272 , 13 L. Ed. 693 (1850); United States v. Worley, 281 U. S. 339 , 50 S. … Even without sovereign immunity, the “fund in court” doctrine would not entitle the custodian here to a counsel fee.

Langberg v. Wagner

101 N.J. Eq. 383 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 10, 1927

A negative answer can only be had by reading into the covenant the words "as principal," whereas the language used more nearly excludes that limitation and the circumstances of the case clearly forbid qualification of that … To read into that covenant the qualifying terms suggested appears to me to invade the obvious need and purpose and very spirit of the engagement.

Frank Lovato v. Clifton Police Department

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025

As a result, Sergeant Hayes was "entitled to absolute immunity under [N.J.S.A.] 59:5-2(b) since plaintiff[s] provided no evidence to establish [he] engaged in willful misconduct." … To pierce [N.J.S.A. 59:]3-3's qualified immunity, a plaintiff must prove more than ordinary negligence.

Morgan v. Susino Construction Co.

130 N.J.L. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 17, 1943

The testimony concerning these declarations was clearly hearsay. The declarations cannot be justified as admissions against interest because Jordan is not a party to this case. … By his declaration of paternity he establishes himself as related by blood to the child, but that relationship is not established as fact unless and until the testimony offered is actually received in evidence.

Patricia J. McClain v. Board of Review (080397)(Statewide)

237 N.J. 445 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 29, 2019

the burden of establishing that she is entitled to UI benefits through an adversarial process. … The employee must satisfy the burden of establishing that she is entitled to UI benefits. Brady, 152 N.J. at 218.

In Re Proposed Increased Intrastate Industrial Sand Rates

66 N.J. 12 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 23, 1974

E. at 774 ] And, of course, Judge Cardozo saw such “constitutional immunities” as inhering in the public which pays as well as in the entity which receives. … But (within constitutional limits of course) this is clearly a matter for the Legislature.

Sisler v. Gannett Co., Inc.

104 N.J. 256 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1986

Jeffries, 93 N.J. 533 (1983) (parental immunity inapplicable if parent willfully and wantonly failed to supervise child). … It is our conclusion that the plaintiff must establish defamation against defendants by establishing actual malice in the publication of the offending articles.

Kloss v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills

170 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1979

Article IV, dealing with salaries for patrolmen, established four ranges, a starting salary, and salaries after the first, second and third year of employment. … Clearly, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-5 did not intend to count service in one job title with one municipality for promotional examination to an unrelated job title in another municipality.

Plainfield-Union Water Co. v. Borough of Mountainside

14 N.J. 296 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 1954

The reinvestiture of jurisdiction in the inferior tribunal is in consonance with that judgment, and qualified accordingly. … establish bias and prejudice” and a “preconceived plan * * * to aid and establish the basis of a predetermined ruling later to be made in favor of the respondent.”

Proskurnja v. Elder

73 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 1962

But before coverage can be extended to any applicant, he must clearly demonstrate that he is a member of the class for whose benefit the Fund was established." … It is my conclusion that plaintiffs here have demonstrated clearly that they are within the class for whose benefit the Fund was established within the meaning of *476 the provisions of the act.