Case law

Cooper v. Cape May County Board of Social Services

175 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2001

Bright’s dissemination of work to him was clearly within the scope of her job responsibilities, and was subsequently approved by the DOP as consistent with her job responsibilities. … custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the *743 jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Paul v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

196 N.J. Super. 286 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 1984

We are satisfied that Paul's attendants and the coordinator qualify as part of his psychiatric care, and as such constitute proper "medical expenses." … Where the testimony and the opinions in the record clearly establish that the attendants were necessary, and even recommended, there is no need for a formal written prescription.

Jane Jlw Roe v. Jersey City Public Schools

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 2026

Under the TCA, the Legislature established that "[g]enerally, immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception." Nieves v. Adolf, 241 N.J. 567, 575 (2020) (quoting Fleuhr v. … The CVA includes N.J.S.A. 59:2-1.3, which establishes that "immunity from civil liability granted by [the TCA] to a public entity or public employee shall not apply to an action at law for damages as a result of a sexual

Cetofonte v. Camden Coke Co.

78 N.J.L. 662 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 28, 1910

There was no showing nor offer to show, either in the court below or here, that the remaining answers were material to the issue or that they tended to explain, qualify or limit the answer admitted. … Clearly, in the absence of such showing, the action of the trial judge cannot be said to be erroneous. What the result might have been in a dif *668 ferent situation we are not called upon to determine.

Mary Richter v. Oakland Board of Education (083273)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 2021

We stated in Royster that [t]o establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability, or … Clearly absent from that recitation is mention of an adverse employment action as an element. Two years later, in Caraballo v.

State v. Cameron

104 N.J. 42 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 25, 1986

The exceptional immunity extended to the drunkard is limited to those instances where the crime involves a specific, actual intent. … In order to satisfy the statutory condition that to qualify as a defense intoxication must negative an element of the offense, the intoxication must be of an extremely high level.

In Re Expungement of Commitment Records of D. G.

162 N.J. Super. 404 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1977

However, if by cure it is meant a state of immunity with no possibility of recurrence later in life, the authorities were not yet in a position to give an absolute guarantee. … A. 30:4-80.11) the Legislature clearly intended to place petitioner in the same position he was in before the hospitalization and illness occurred, with a view toward eliminating to the greatest possible extent petitioner

Moehring v. Maute

268 N.J. Super. 477 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 12, 1993

It is generally accepted that "financially capable parents should contribute to the higher education of children who are qualified students." Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529, 544 , 443 A. 2d 1031 (1982). … A personal injury settlement differs from a custodial or trust account established for the child's education. Clearly, funds set aside for educational purposes should be utilized to defray the parents' obligation.

State v. SMITH

102 N.J. Super. 325 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1968

The presence of a stenographer and the recording of testimony adduced before the grand jury is clearly of a permissive nature. State v. DiModica, 40 N.J. 404, 412 (1963). … Once the movant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, i.e., a significant disparity between those qualified for jury service and those of the group actually on the jury lists, the burden of proof shifts to the

Gerber v. BD. OF REV., ETC, NJ DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUS.

20 N.J. 561 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 13, 1956

Specific conditions under which unemployment compensation can or should be paid where there is a work stoppage as a result of a labor dispute is clearly within the legislative province. … Some states appear to qualify the intent of the statute and make disqualification from benefits operative only if unemployment “is directly due” to a labor dispute.

Bar-David v. Economic Concepts, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 759 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2014

She reasoned, soundly, that the Plan did not qualify as an ERISA plan, and therefore that ERISA preemption did not apply. … Judge Arleo did not need to carry her analysis any further to establish that federal court jurisdiction was not appropriate.

Univ. Cottage v. Env. Protection

191 N.J. 38 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 30, 2007

First, you should recognize that being "non-profit" does not automatically qualify an organization for property tax exemption. … (They are off-campus clubs and clearly not part of the University.) Secondly, your criteria says that: "The property must be open to the public on a regular basis." This is clearly not the case.

State v. Reldan

185 N.J. Super. 494 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 1982

Moreover, the two instances sought to be employed to establish defendant's identity were themselves dissimilar. … Our examination of the record presented leads to the conclusion that these contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Paul Kimball Hospital, Inc. v. Brick Township Hospital, Inc.

86 N.J. 429 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1981

Initially the Department ruled Brick did not qualify for the exemption. Subsequently, the Department decided to reconsider this decision and held a hearing for that purpose. … [g]ranting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever.

State v. Carlone

109 N.J.L. 208 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1932

One who is otherwise qualified and who has been in such position that he would probably have heard comment had there been such, may testify to the reputation of another in the neighborhood where the *214 latter resides, even … The testimony in the record does not establish reputation. Therefore, also for the reason last assigned, we think there was error.

Fanelli v. Centenary College

211 F.R.D. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2002

The Pansy Court went on to hold that “good cause is established on a showing that disclosure [here, videotaping] will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. … Good cause cannot be established upon some general or speculative alleged harm. III.

Dawson v. Hatfield Wire & Cable Co.

59 N.J. 190 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1971

Such is clearly the law of this State. Booker v. James Spence Iron Foundry, 80 N. J. Super. 68, 73 (App. Div. 1963). … Where such facts coalesce, we think that the petitioner qualifies as a “wife” under the statute.

Branch v. White

99 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1968

It is obvious that all eligible employees had to be notified of this condition in order to be able to qualify for participation. … Journeymen, etc., 279 F. 2 d 92, 97 (7 Cir. 1960), the court clearly indicated that employees have a right to bring an action in a state court under established principles of equity where their action is based on an alleged

Mruz v. Caring, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1998

Immunity, for example, qualified or sovereign immunity, is normally a defense which must be asserted and proven by á defendant or which may be waived. See, e.g., Gomez v. … At most, Plaintiffs allege that they were threatened with adverse employment actions, clearly not a threat to tangible property. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶ 61(a).

Grover v. Woodward

91 N.J. Eq. 250 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 5, 1920

The cars arrived in Detroit August 25th, and defendant received notice that about ten per cent, of the potatoes in one car, and about twenty per cent, in the other, did not qualify as Grade No. 1. … Omitting the question of comity, the authorities cited simply declare that complainant must allege and prove circumstances clearly entitling him, as a matter of equity, to the injunctive relief — circumstances clearly showing