Case law

Boyd v. Keesey

118 F. Supp. 436 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 1954

“The county court of each county shall have full authority to hear and determine all controversies respecting wills * * Since a decision in the case at bar will require construction of the will setting up the trust, it clearly … She was qualified by the Morris County Court.

Morris v. Muller

113 N.J.L. 46 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 1934

On the other hand, he is not immune from the responsibility, if he fails to employ in the work he undertakes that reasonable knowledge and skill exercised by lawyers of ordinary ability and skill. McCullough v. … This clearly evinces a legislative purpose to vest in real estate brokers, who must, as a prerequisite to the right to a license, submit to examination as to their qualifications, the authority to draft the enumerated documents

WALKER v. COUNTY OF GLOUCESTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 2022

To determine as a matter of law that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. … The Court disagrees that the record is so clear that the supervisory defendants are, as a matter of law, not entitled to qualified immunity.

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.

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. Ettore

228 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 1988

Each test result established that the ampule batch was prepared properly. … Even assuming that this argument was properly before us, the asserted proofs do not qualify as newly discovered evidence.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Christie

926 F. Supp. 2d 551 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2013

Additionally, New Jersey was the only state qualified to establish sports gambling within the one-year period outlined in § 3704(a)(3). New Jersey chose not to exercise that opportunity. … It is clearly established that the State of New Jersey, as a governmental entity, is not a “person” and therefore is not afforded the protections of the Due Process Clause.

Jeannette Andreula v. the Board of Education of the Township of Nutley

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 26, 2024

We note the court further granted the Board's motion to dismiss finding qualified immunity shielded "the Board and its members" from liability under the NJLAD. We disagree. … Therefore, qualified immunity is not afforded. Individual Liability N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a) prohibits unlawful discrimination only by an "employer."

Review v. Barnert Memorial Hospital

273 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1994

(b) This section sets forth minimum qualification criteria far utilization review organizations, prescribes the qualification procedure, and establishes a method for financing organizations which qualify. … State-qualified UROs were established “to ensure that the hospital services which are provided are appropriate, necessary, and of high quality.” N.J.A.C. 8:31B — 3.76(a).

Port of New York Authority v. Hackensack Water Co.

41 N.J. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 6, 1963

The distinction has proved useful to restrain the ancient concept of municipal tort immunity, not because of any logic in the distinction, but rather because sound policy dictated that governmental immunity should not envelop … This stimulated state legislation to relieve private utilities of the common law rule, at least as to projects qualifying for *108 federal aid.

Belfer v. Borrella

9 N.J. Super. 287 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 1950

The 1938 act ( P.L. 1938, c. 381, p. 955 — R.S. 11:27-13) required that the disabled veteran, in order to qualify for the preference in question, "shall have established proof of such disability on or prior to the date of … The proofs here clearly establish that the defendant failed to comply with the pertinent provision of the 1947 act.

NEW JERSEY CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER VS. VINCENT DOMINACH (L-0014-17, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2019

Judge Miller also considered whether if defendant was not entitled to absolute immunity, under the circumstances, he would still be entitled to qualified immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 ("[a] public employee is not liable … immunity.

Nusbaum v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

86 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 1965

That qualified privilege is clearly applicable here. Coleman v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 29 N.J. 357, 379 (1959); Swede v. Passaic Daily News, 30 N.J. 320, 333 (1959). … If her public activity on behalf of the teachers extended to 1957 this record does not clearly so demonstrate, for summary judgment purposes. At best, a jury issue in that regard would apparently be projected.

Schmalz v. Wooley

56 N.J. Eq. 649 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 5, 1898

Does it clearly appear in the title of the act of 1892 that the prior act referred to is the act of 1889? … Northampton, 21 Vr. 499 , “ the enacting part of a statute, however clearly expressed, can have no effect beyond the object expressed in the title.

CORCORAN v. CAUWELS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 2023

The burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity rests with the movant asserting the defense. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 288 (3d Cir. 2014). … “The qualified immunity inquiry contains two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

Newark Branch, National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Township of West Orange

786 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1992

Clearly, to the extent there has been a “lengthy dispute” West Orange did nothing to hasten the resolution of the dispute. … Clearly, West Orange has a significant interest in wanting its police and fire fighters to be able to respond quickly to an emergency situation.

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.

State v. Townsend

186 N.J. 473 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 2006

Kabus was qualified to offer the proffered testimony. Indeed, Dr. Kabus was previously qualified to testify as an expert about battered woman’s syndrome in State v. … We may reverse on the basis of unchallenged error if we find error that was “clearly capable of producing an unjust result,” R. 2:10-2, commonly known as the “plain error” standard.

State v. Scott

236 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 1989

The trial judge accepted the State’s claims, despite defendant’s objection that the prior non-Graves Act sentences established that the earlier robberies were not Graves Act offenses. … 2C:43-6d, the facts and circumstances clearly support a finding that the earlier offense was a Graves Act offense.

Flanagan v. Department of Civil Service

29 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 19, 1959

[They are] vested with a high discretion, and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.” Maxwell v. Civil Service Commission, 169 Cal. 336 , 146 P. 869 (Sup. Ct. 1915). … John Enright argues as a personal charge of error that he is qualified and should be allowed to take the examination.