Case law

Phillips v. Curiale

245 N.J. Super. 418 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1991

Thus, we do not agree that Phillips’ claim against his fellow employees, and through them the State by way of indemnification, could be deemed clearly to have “vested” prior to 1986, as distinct from being a “pending” claim … is also appropriate to note that Administratrix elected to ignore the Court’s recommendation to proceed first with the administrative remedy against the Department of Defense, see id. at 253 , 486 A.2d 318 , in order to establish

Schechter v. NJ DEPT. OF LAW

327 N.J. Super. 428 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 2000

N.J.S.A. 5:12-71a provides: The commission shall, by regulation, provide for the establishment of a list of persons who are to be excluded or ejected from any licensed casino establishment. … N.J.A.C. 19:48-1.4(b) Although N.J.S.A. 5:12-71a imposes an obligation upon the Commission to establish and maintain a casino exclusion list, the statute and regulations adopted thereunder clearly indicate that both the Commission

State v. Parkins

263 N.J. Super. 423 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1993

Clearly, the fine was illegal (the assessment being below the statutory minimum); but more significantly, the court below had no authority to disqualify the defendant from obtaining a commercial drivers license. … It defines a lesser included offense as one which “is established by proof of the *426 same or less than all the factors required to establish the commission of the offense charged ...” (emphasis supplied).

Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill

381 N.J. Super. 412 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 2005

Indeed, "opinion[s], as a matter of constitutional law, enjoy absolute immunity." Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., 104 N.J. 125, 147 , 516 A. 2d 220 (1986). … Here, defendant's statement was clearly opinion, as it cannot be proved or disproved. Further, he has failed to demonstrate any harm suffered as a result of the statement.

County Trust Co. v. Bryant

111 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1970

The case before us is clearly distinguishable on several grounds. … It now argues that the October 2 hearing for the purpose of qualifying Christensen actually constituted part of the application for the bank charter. Clearly, that is not so.

Sanders v. Hunter

253 N.J. Super. 666 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 1991

judgment creditor against the operator and owner of the motor vehicle by which the accident was occasioned and shall bring an action ... when and in the event that the identity of either or both of such persons shall be established … Clearly the reference is to section N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.4 wherein is described the so-called “hit and run” owner or driver (see section N.J.S.A. 39:6-78).

SAUNDERS v. NJ DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 2022

“To plead a cause of action under Ex Parte Young, a plaintiff must establish a present violation of federal law” and seek “prospective injunctive relief.” Gregory v. Admin. Office of the Courts of N.J., 168 F. … Title II of the ADA requires a plaintiff to show the following to establish a violation: “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some

Steinmann v. State, Dept. of Treasury

116 N.J. 564 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 1989

retirees under sixty-five years old who are considered “totally and permanently disabled” as a direct result of a “traumatic event” that occurred in the course of the performance of regular employment duties. 5 Those who qualify … Alternatively, she could have applied, as she did, for accidental-disability benefits; if rejected, she could qualify for ordinary-disability benefits.

In Re the Appeal of Certain Sections of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules

90 N.J. 85 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1982

The rule, however, does not clearly so provide. … These rules are of that character and are, therefore, clearly valid. N.J.A.C. 1:1—3.5 on sanctions warrants special note.

Marks v. Snedeker

612 F. Supp. 1158 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 1985

The continuing involvement of the state legislature, vis-a-vis the joint committee and the *1162 study commission, clearly counsels in favor of our abstention in this matter. … Nevertheless, it may write insurance for any qualified driver and not just those who present a high risk. 4 . The eight cases of which we are aware are those of Harry Ryan, Docket No. A-2432-84T7; Elaine M.

Federbush v. Federbush

5 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1949

The judgment of contempt must have been founded upon the court's conclusion from the evidence that in conjunction with defendant's disobedience of the order he clearly possessed the financial means, but not the willingness … He appears to be well qualified and capable; and it is reasonable to assume that his prospect of advancement and increased earnings are good.

BRADY v. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, COUNTY OF BERGEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2020

While on its face § 1983 affords no immunities, the Supreme Court has “accorded certain government officials either absolute or qualified immunity.” Id. at 163–64. … To start, the State of New Jersey and the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General are clearly covered by the Eleventh Amendment and are immune from suit. See Lombardo v. Pa. Dep’t of Pub.

Jacques v. Kinsey

347 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 5, 2001

To summarize, in order to pass the verbal threshold for a permanent injury, plaintiff must establish, within a reasonable degree of medical probability and through a physician's certification, four factors: (1) qualifying … If plaintiff fails to establish any one of the four criteria, the claim is defeated.

Zicherman v. Department of Civil Service

40 N.J. 347 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1963

The appellant appealed from the above determination and moved before the Appellate Division for leave to take additional evidence "for the purpose of establishing in detail the actual duties performed by the Supervising Clerk … candidate for a particular position, and the highly technical problem of devising suitable examination questions which will demonstrate as accurately as possible whether an applicant possesses those requirements sufficiently to qualify

Greenleaf v. Plainfield Trust Co.

122 N.J. Eq. 500 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 18, 1937

Complainant's father predeceased the testatrix and The Plainfield Trust Company qualified as trustee. At the time of the death of testatrix complainant was living with his wife. … The rule is well established in this state that the intention of the testatrix is the law of wills and that when her intention is ascertained, if not in violation of the rules of law, it will prevail over technical rules

Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co. v. Crawford

103 N.J.L. 440 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1927

Bennett had qualified as an expert. … Our examination of this case has satisfied us that the trial court grasped most intelligently the issues presented, ruled clearly and concisely upon the admission and rejection of testimony, and fairly and concretely presented

TEEL v. ELIASEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 9, 2019

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officers from civil liability under Section 1983 “so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly … At the second step, courts “decide whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of [the] defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id.

Demech v. BD. OF REVIEW, DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY

167 N.J. Super. 35 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1979

The facts recounted by the Board of Review in the proceedings on remand establish that claimant was employed for nine months by the Great Atlantic & Pacific Company (A & P) as a meat wrapper. … Inadvertent or unintentional acts, or simple neglectful conduct not amounting to *39 a wanton disregard of consequences, will not so qualify. Id. at 182.

Caminiti v. Board of Trustees

431 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 2013

After hearing from appellant and expert witnesses from both sides, the ALJ concluded that appellant qualified for accidental disability because, as a reasonable sheriffs officer in 2000, he could have suffered a qualifying … The Court found that “prolonged exposure” clearly failed to meet the traumatic event requirement as that term had been defined for purposes of accidental disability pensions. Id. at 51 , 942 A.2d 782 .

KELLY v. CALLAHAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 2024

DISCUSSION In moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants contend that: (1) they are not “persons” subject to § 1983 liability; (2) they have Eleventh Amendment immunity; (3) Plaintiff does not establish … Callahan’s personal involvement in any unconstitutional conduct; and (4) Defendants have qualified immunity.