Case law

Senna v. Walter Florimont & 2400 Amusements, Inc.

196 N.J. 469 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 2008

The article clearly suggested that Sisler improperly benefited from insider dealing. See id. at 260, 275 , 516 A.2d 1083 . … In a case involving the negligence standard, proof of fault must be established only by a preponderance of the evidence. Kass v.

Matter of Jobes

108 N.J. 394 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1987

If a once-competent patient in a persistent vegetative state has not clearly expressed his or her wishes about the termination of treatment, his or her family is remitted to the substituted-judgment approach. … Hospitals that cannot afford or attract a bio-ethicist could, nonetheless, authorize the establishment of an ethics committee.

Menger v. Laur

55 N.J.L. 205 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1893

The earliest case in which the doctrine of contributory negligence as a bar to an action was clearly expressed is Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East 60, decided in 1809. … When the direct and immediate cause of damage is clearly proved to be the fault of the defendant, contributory negligence by the plaintiff cannot be established merely by showing that if those in charge of the ship had, in

Harmon v. Holmes

712 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1989

In Vickey , the Appellate Division noted that the plaintiff had "failed to establish that defendant[ ]’s issuance of the complaint was actuated by malice.” Vickey , 230 NJ.Super. at 150, 553 A.2d at 39 . … LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 345-46 (1983) (witness is absolutely immune from § 1983 action for statements in court). 8 .

Save Camden Pub. Sch. v. Camden City Bd. of Educ.

454 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2018

QSAC, which was enacted in 2005 and last substantively amended in 2007, established a comprehensive statutory scheme to evaluate a school district's performance. … We will start with plaintiffs' claim under the CRA because that claim was clearly not barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Donovan v. Bergen County Board of Chosen Freeholders

436 N.J. Super. 91 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2012

Judge Feinberg found that these statutory provisions “establish a clear and specific legislative intent to vest with the County Executive the authority to appoint the registered municipal ac *100 countant.” … Clearly, the Board’s attempts to analogize the appointment of the municipal accountant to the state auditor are misplaced.

BROWN v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2019

Qualified Immunity Standard The doctrine of qualified immunity “exempts a police officer, who is sued for a violation of an individual’s constitutional … Indeed, one of the “clearly established” protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Brownell v. Schering Corporation

129 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 1955

Clearly these added assets accrued to him as equitable corporate owner. … The correctness of this principle has already been established by the many leading authorities cited supra.

Carpender v. New Brunswick

135 N.J. Eq. 397 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 30, 1944

It is no less the exaction of reason and equity, than of the settled law, that courts require the violation of a condition which involves a forfeiture to be clearly established. … Those interests in real property which are not absolute and unconditional have been recognized as "qualified estates."

Masel v. Paramus Borough Council

180 N.J. Super. 32 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1981

[her successor] shall have qualified” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:87—15. … or which may be established by any such county board of taxation.

Panettieri v. CV Hill Refrigeration

159 N.J. Super. 472 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 1978

Causal relation between a job and a heart attack must be established by expert proof, and Panettieri is clearly no expert. … Flood's opinion was not reasonably arrived at, was clearly implied.

Seidman v. Clifton Savings Bank

205 N.J. 150 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 2011

It concluded that the 2005 Plan “does establish a community of interest between the shareholders and the Board of Directors.” … Under the rule, when business judgments are made in good faith based on reasonable business knowledge, the decision makers are immune from liability from actions brought by others who have an interest in the business entity

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People, Newark Branch v. Town of Harrison

749 F. Supp. 1327 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 1990

However, I do not believe that such experts are needed in the circumstances of this case to establish that there is a marked disparity between the pool of qualified black applicants for municipal jobs in Harrison and the … and 31.8% of the service workers. 6 This establishes conclusively that there are available outside of Harrison and within Harrison’s labor market a pool of Black persons fully qualified to perform the functions of clerk

Hammer v. Township of Livingston

318 N.J. Super. 298 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 18, 1999

The Act was intended to re-establish the Legislature's overriding philosophy that immunity for public entities is the general rule and liability is the exception. See Pico v. … In Collins, our Supreme Court held that "an aggravating and intrusive assault" that causes a victim to sustain a permanent psychological injury may be sufficient to qualify as a "permanent loss of a bodily function" under

Higgins v. NJ Bureau of Securities

100 N.J. Super. 266 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1968

A brief review of the pertinent provisions of the Uniform Securities Act in the light of its beneficent purpose clearly shows that the lack of substance to appellant's contention that questions 13 (d), (g) and (h) exceeded … N.J.S.A. 49:3-57(a) to (f) establishes a comprehensive registration plan.

Pappas v. Huezo

237 N.J. Super. 492 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 1989

Therefore, since the unit on the first floor is used as a dental office by one of the plaintiffs, it does not qualify to exempt plaintiffs from the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1. In the recent case of Durruthy v. … Super. 199 (App.Div. 1988), the court stated that the wording in the preliminary paragraph of N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 (quoted above) is complementary to subparagraph 1(3) in which latter provision the statute clearly mentions

Transtech Industries, Inc. v. a & Z SEPTIC CLEAN

798 F. Supp. 1079 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 1992

These actions by plaintiff clearly are the result of civil actions by the government. … Only complaints that clearly violate this standard should be stricken.

United States v. Pelullo

961 F. Supp. 736 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 1997

Judge Kelly found that: “The tape recorded conversations introduced by the government clearly establish the existence of a conspiracy between Heine, Pelullo and Pelullo’s father to defeat the government’s forfeiture interest … The grand jury transcript referred to the grant of immunity and a separate “informal letter of immunity.”

Levine v. Miller

272 N.J. Super. 512 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1993

The plaintiff clearly required extensive restorative dentistry as a result of the accident. … Based on these facts, this court is of the opinion that plaintiffs injuries could qualify as a category 6 injury. The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.

Btd-1996 NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.

170 N.J. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 14, 2001

Implementing its statutory authority, RTC had adopted a policy concerning payment of state and local taxes that provides in part: The Corporation is immune from taxes other than ad valorem real property taxes. … property are generally in the nature of excise taxes which are levied on the transaction and not on the property (although the calculation of the amount of tax may be based on the property’s sale price); the Corporation is immune