Case law

Lutz v. Royal Ins. Co. of America

245 N.J. Super. 480 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1991

The qualified privilege, applicable in this case, has been best described as follows. … However, "[b]ecause a qualified privilege is favored with a presumption that there was no express malice, plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that the statements complained of were made `from an indirect or improper

Keyes Martin & Co. v. Director, Division of Purchase & Property, Department of Treasury

196 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 5, 1984

An Evaluation Committee found that appellant was the best qualified bidder with a score of 84.2 out of a possible 100 under established technical evaluation criteria, 8 points higher than *56 the next best qualified bidder … That which is clearly implied is as much a part of the law as that which is expressed.’ ” Ward v. Scott, supra, 11 N.J. at 123 , quoting from Brandon v.

State v. Allah

170 N.J. 269 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2002

Clearly[,] the witness ... after consulting with counsel[,] has a right to take the Fifth Amendment. Clearly[,] that results in creating a very unfair playing field. Can I tell the jury to disregard direct examination? … Reeves, 293 F.Supp. 213, 214 (D.D.C.1968) (recognizing that constitutional immunity from double jeopardy can be waived, but finding that defendant not placed in jeopardy twice).

BURT v. HICKS

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

Defendants now move to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims, arguing that he fails to state a plausible basis for relief and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, Defendants are free to re-present their qualified immunity and official capacity arguments at that time.

Johnson v. Cyklop Strapping Corp.

220 N.J. Super. 250 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 6, 1987

Levine's potential liability as a link in the distributive chain was thus established. … The same is clearly so in respect of a common-law indemnity claim.

Marrero v. Camden County Board of Social Services

164 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 2001

tort immunity where they are “exercising a privilege of the principal”. 563 A.2d at 42-43 . … An employer's duty to afford an employee the protections of the FMLA begins as soon as "the employee provides the employer with enough information to put the employer on notice that FMLA-qualified leave is needed.”

Columbia Fire Insurance v. Kinyon

37 N.J.L. 33 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1874

This object is accomplished by prescribing the conditions upon which they may effect insurances through agencies established here. … Corporations are artificial beings, the creatures of positive law, and not citizens within the meaning of that clause of the federal constitution, which secures to the citizens of each state “ like privileges and immunities

Contey v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.

136 N.J. 582 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1994

I dissent in this rather ordinary negligence case because the majority finds grounds to exonerate utilities from any responsibility for the placement of telephone poles and, in effect, accords them unwarranted immunity. … Clearly, governmental authorities have the right to determine the location of utility poles.

Alim v. Byrne

521 F. Supp. 1039 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 8, 1980

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that: *1044 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person … Certain of the actions of plaintiffs were clearly not religious in nature. The maintenance of a checkbook and the sale of food to UARDSI members were not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Soto v. Scaringelli

384 N.J. Super. 431 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 2006

AICRA modified the categories of injury qualifying for recompense under the verbal threshold. … Clearly there can be scars that are so minimal and so concealed from view that no reasonable person could find them significant. We do not find that to be the case here.

Sokol v. Liebstein

9 N.J. 93 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 10, 1952

Plaintiff argues that the trial court and the jury had the opportunity to pass on credibility and did so, the trial court reducing the verdict merely because the proofs did not establish the quantum of commissions claimed … “Due regard” is qualified and explained by the balance of the language of the rule: it must clearly and convincingly appear that the verdict was the result of mistake, partiality, prejudice or passion.

United States v. State of New Jersey

530 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 13, 1981

establishes a prima facie case of a pattern of discrimination. … Where a pattern of discrimination has been established, a qualified minority applicant who is denied employment is entitled to a presumption that the denial was based on impermissible considerations, and it is the burden

In re the Veto by Governor Christie

429 N.J. Super. 277 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 2012

DLPS is one such department “established in the executive branch.” N.J.S.A. 52:17B-1. … VI, sec. 5, para. 4) which largely immunizes it from legislative curbs.”). But, our review is circumscribed, lest we violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. See Texter v.

Capital Health System, Inc. v. Horizon Healthcare

446 N.J. Super. 96 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 2016

Here, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the Agreements clearly state that Horizon is permitted to establish new networks, in which the hospitals may participate if they meet "all criteria and standards established and evaluated … Because the disputed information in the McKinsey report is so clearly confidential and, just as clearly, of little or no relevance to the hospitals' claims against Horizon, we conclude the trial judges should have redacted

Southern Jersey Airways v. Nat. Bk. of Secaucus

108 N.J. Super. 369 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1970

Under N.J.S.A. 2A:44-2 and the Code section quoted, taken together, a qualified aircraft mechanic's lienholder having possession would clearly take priority over a security interest perfected under Article 9 of the Code. … It is notable, moreover, that the plaintiff's interest was represented by an instrument clearly recordable under the federal act.

Nelson v. Board of Educ. of Tp. of Old Bridge

148 N.J. 358 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 12, 1997

An individual may possess multiple endorsements under a certificate, qualifying that person to be employed in the positions covered by the respective endorsements. … Rather, “[w]here ... supervening considerations clearly compel a contrary determination, this, like all other rules of statutory construction^] must give way.”

Dehart v. US Bank, N.A. ND

811 F. Supp. 2d 1038 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2011

’s first argument, Plaintiffs oppose dismissal by insisting that the letters need not qualify as a consumer contract because they qualify as “notices” under the statute. … Defendant contends that to state a claim under the TCCWNA, Plaintiffs must be “consumers” as defined under the statute, and that the notice must violate a clearly established right at the time it was sent.

Mance v. Quest Diagnostics Inc. Voluntary Separation Agreement Plan

237 F. Supp. 3d 217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2017

ERISA applies to “any employee benefit plan if it is established or maintained ... by any employer engaged in commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (a). Severance plans may qualify as ERISA plans. See Alston v. Atl. Elec. … This further demonstrates the difficulty of objectively ascertaining the specific benefits due to qualifying employees.

City of Ventnor City v. Interdenominational Foreign Missionary Society of New Jersey, Inc.

13 N.J. Tax 445 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 1, 1993

Columbian Institute, 101 N.J.Super. 205, 209 , 243 A.2d 853 (Cty.Ct.1968) (a nonprofit corporation, not organized exclusively for charitable purposes, does not enjoy charitable immunity from tort liability under N.J.S.A 2A … In their briefs, however, both parties assumed that the corporation qualified under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, and they focused on the use of the properties.

Ostrowski v. Azzara

111 N.J. 429 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 1988

Al *432 though the parties agreed that such habits should not be regarded as evidencing comparative fault for the medical injury at issue, we find that the instructions to the jury failed to draw the line clearly between … Negligent conduct is not “immunized by the concept of ‘avoidable consequences.’