Case law

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.

New York Shipbuilding Corp. v. United States

237 F. Supp. 995 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 1965

It contends that what constitutes “normal production, output or operation” for this, as well as any particular taxpayer, is that established by the actual production experience up to the time of the alleged qualifying event … In Oxford, the qualifying event was a drought.

State v. Williams

252 N.J. Super. 369 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 5, 1991

The burden is on the proponent to "clearly establish" each of these methods. Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 105 N.J. 373, 378 , 522 A. 2d 405 (1987). … These highly qualified scientists testified to the overwhelming acceptance within the scientific community of PCR-amplified DNA testing.

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Tymkow

87 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1965

Ct. 1964), wherein the court stated: *115 "If the defendant is neither the named insured nor an omnibus insured there is clearly no obligation to defend regardless of the allegations of the petition and irrespective of the … To hold otherwise is to completely erase from the policy the qualifying phrase `against the insured,' contained in Clause II (a) * * *."

Sery v. Federal Business Centers, Inc.

616 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 14, 2008

In addition, the Serys executed a Qualified Subchapter S Trust Election pursuant to Section 1361(d) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code in which they consented to election and attested that their various trusts were qualifying … Again, Section 14A:7-12(2) of the NJBCA clearly provides the procedure for imposing restrictions on the transfer of Subchapter S shares.

ADRIAN SOSA VS. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY (L-0160-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

458 N.J. Super. 639 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2019

However, we also affirm the order denying summary judgment to plaintiff, as plaintiff has not established that his personal damage claim satisfies a named peril, and the balance of plaintiff's damages are not clearly documented … Applying the definitions that convey a sense of permanence to the water body, the water-main break's water does not qualify as "surface water."

Bell v. KA Industrial Services, LLC

567 F. Supp. 2d 701 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2008

In order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge because of a handicap, he must establish that: (1) he is disabled or perceived to have a disability; (2) he was otherwise qualified to perform … Moreover, to the extent that the Amended Complaint may assert a violation of LAD for failure to accommodate, Bell need not establish that his replacement was similarly qualified. See Leshner v. McCollister’s Transp.

Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke

163 N.J. 95 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 7, 2000

Under this system, district-run schools will have qualified teachers; DHS-licensed providers will not. … That model clearly called for small classes headed by a qualified teacher, and not one teacher and two aides for every twenty students as permitted by the Department’s new regulation. We observe that in Dr.

Norman v. Selective Ins. Co.

249 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1991

Norman recognized her injury, the other driver could not be identified, qualifying the accident as a "hit-and-run." … We conclude that the legislative enactment that resulted in the establishment of hit-and-run protection favors this result.

State v. Gaitan

209 N.J. 339 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 28, 2012

In our view, that result was sufficiently novel to qualify as a new rule. Indeed, if Padilla is considered an old rule, it is hard to imagine an application of Strickland that would qualify as a new rule. … On this record, looking ahead to the prejudice prong, we find no *379 evidence of prejudice, as Goulboume’s attention was clearly elsewhere.

Klawitter v. City of Trenton

395 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 2007

Promotional, which shall include qualified permanent eligibles; c. … Keenan testified to his selection criteria, and his belief that Ingram was the most qualified.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

16 N.J. Tax 132 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 27, 1996

by the merger or consolidation, possess all the rights, privileges, powers, immunities, purposes and franchises, both public and private, of each of the merging or consolidating corporations. … It pointed out that “the two acts deal with different subjects (corporate law and tax law), have different purposes and are clearly not part of a single comprehensive plan.” Id. at 637-38 .

State ex rel. A.J.

232 N.J. Super. 274 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 1989

Steven Marcus testified that a state of catatonia or coma, in which the person becomes immune to or doesn’t interact with her environment, is consistent with the concentration of phencyclidine found in S.G.’s blood and urine … For the Juvenile to qualify under the statute, he would have to be rehabilitated by the age of 19 and not merely in the process of becoming rehabilitated.

SIMON v. GIANATIEMPO, M.D.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 2022

Whether Plaintiffs Have Established a Prima Facie Case Against Dr. … To establish a prima facie case of medical negligence based on a deviation from the standard of care, “a plaintiff must present expert testimony establishing: (1) an applicable standard of care, (2) a deviation from this

Pelham v. United States

661 F. Supp. 1063 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 1987

. §§ 1346 (b), 2671-2680, operates as a waiver of traditional sovereign immunity. … Certain cases are excepted from this broad waiver of immunity under the “discretionary function exception.”

MARTZ v. CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 31, 2019

of this Opinion, Defendants also request that this Court grant summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability as long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

In re Moy Jeung Dun

101 F. Supp. 203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 1951

. § 703, that the pre-existing disqualification from citizenship of the Chinese national remains, not by specific name but by exclusion from those qualified or eligible to be naturalized. … together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own free will- and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities

Matter of Mallon

232 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 1989

Although he could not clearly remember all the names on his absentee ballot, Webb knew for a fact that he voted for all the Republican candidates listed. … Here, petitioner clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing the person for whom the other challenged absentee ballots were cast, or that circumstances prevented such proofs.

Shallcross v. COMMUNITY STATE BANK AND TRUST CO.

180 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1981

Article 9 lays out the framework upon which competing security interests can be evaluated and priorities established. … In this regard, N.J.S.A. 12A:9-312(5) provides in relevant part that In all cases not governed by other rules stated in this section (including cases of purchase money security interests which do not qualify for the special

DEUTSCH v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 17, 2023

In opposition, Microsoft argues that the Arbitrator’s orders were consistent with clearly established law. (Opp’n Br. at 17.) … Rather, in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, the Arbitrator explained that Section 230(c)(2)(A) establishes provider immunity from civil claims for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to