Case law

Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Director of Taxation

387 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 2006

Div. of Taxation, 9 N.J.Tax 152, 158 (1987) (“[Exemption statutes must be strictly construed, and the burden is on the taxpayer to establish entitlement to exemption.”). … Clearly, however, they are an essential part of the operation and function of Quest’s laboratory business, and common sense dictates that they are neither “containers” nor “wrapping materials” as contemplated by the exemption

Winstock v. Galasso

430 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 2013

be okay if [they] played cards in the establishment.” … Russo subsequently advised the plaintiff “not to discuss the case with the IRS without a grant of immunity.” Ibid.

Hopper v. Stack

69 N.J.L. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 1903

inimical to secrecy than is the open and avowed partisan co-operation that has hitherto constituted the voter’s credential. • Apart, ■ however, from these considerations, the matter, as an incident of police regulation, is clearly … protect worshippers- at camp-meetings could not have been enacted without a determination of the fact of the existence of such associations, the objects of those so associated and the further fact that such objects included immunity

LP Marron & Co. v. River Vale Tp.

54 N.J. Super. 64 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1959

Super. at page 44) it is made clear that the substantial reliance that will immunize the landowner from subsequent legislation must be a "justifiable expenditure in good faith." In the Crecca case, supra ( 52 N.J. … Moreover, our examination of the record does not convince us that the claimed factual effect is clearly established.

State v. Coder

198 N.J. 451 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 2009

Joyce’s out-of-court hearsay statements were offered at trial through her mother, Denise, as qualifying under the “tender years” exception to the hearsay rule. … Clearly, Joyce’s inability or unwillingness to testify at the Rule 104 hearing concerning the events of August 28, 2001, coupled with the fact that she was not even called as a witness at trial, rendered her “unavailable”

State v. Moore

207 N.J. Super. 561 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 1985

Adams has already been subjected to one trial with a death qualified jury. … Adams has the right to be free from being required to sit through a new trial, and the presentation of all the evidence before a new death qualified jury.

Wasserman v. Tannenbaum

23 N.J. Super. 599 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1952

It is the established rule in all jurisdictions that this statute must be strictly construed. … Laws (Tent.) §§ 431, 432, although there is authority that, because of the remedial character of these statutes, the rights of the beneficiaries will not be allowed to fail for the want of a trustee qualified to bring the

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum On Custodian of Records

214 N.J. 147 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2013

To determine whether a defendant qualifies for a public defender, a court staff member collects information about a defendant’s financial status. … The judiciary has an independent responsibility to insure that funds set aside for qualifying criminal defendants are not misappropriated by those who do not qualify but provide false information to obtain a public defender

Petition of Hall by and Through Hall

147 N.J. 379 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 5, 1997

Clearly, petitioners could not file a *389 lawsuit against the second wife at that time because the second wife had not yet died. … Reversing the trial court’s denial of the petition for pre-suit depositions, the Appellate Division held that because petitioners had clearly demonstrated (1) that they expected to be parties to a future litigation, (2) that

In Re Yuhas

186 B.R. 381 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 1995

More germanely, under N.J.S.A. 25:2-l(b) a qualifying trust is defined as a trust created or qualified and maintained pursuant to federal law, including section 401, 403, 408, or 409 of the Internal Revenue Code. … . § 408 , it is a qualifying trust under the statute. It is beyond cavil that the IRA was established for the benefit of the Debtor. THE STATUTE CREATES A RESTRICTION ON TRANSFER A.

Donoghue v. Behler

429 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 1977

Recent Supreme Court decisions establish that no action against a municipality for money damages or for equitable relief may be maintained under § 1983 or § 1985 of the Civil Rights Act. … Clearly, plaintiff's Civil Rights Act claims against the Township must fall, and so must jurisdiction predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1343 . Plaintiff concedes as much.

Richardson v. Smith

74 N.J.L. 111 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1906

These facts are clearly proven. … Clearly, the small cause court had jurisdiction of the controversy that was raised concerning its jurisdiction over the person of the prosecutor.

MILLER INDUSTRIES TOWING EQUIPMENT INC. v. NRC INDUSTRIES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2023

A lawsuit “does not qualify for . . . immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover . . . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’” Id. … Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.

Blessing v. Prosser

141 N.J. Super. 548 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 1976

. * * * Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States. … In fact, it clearly points the other way. In Avdel defendant, a resident of New York, ordered rivets from plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation.

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

Bergen County v. Leonia Borough

14 N.J. Tax 142 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 27, 1994

Clearly, the County or the former County Parks Commission could operate riding facilities which would not be subject to local property tax. … Clearly, if N.J.S.A 40:37-101 does not apply, then I must restrict my analysis to the exemption under N.J.SA 54:4-3.3.

Koch v. Essex County Board of Taxation

97 N.J.L. 61 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 1, 1922

the provision of the constitution (article 4, section 7, paragraph 11), “The legislature shall not pass private, local or special laws * * * granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity … The established rule in this state in classifying property for the purpose of taxation is that each classification must contain all the proq>erty which is in the same class, and that is largely determined by its use, but

National Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Middlesex County Improvement Authority

291 N.J. Super. 283 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1996

After reviewing several responses, MCIA decided that National and Waste Management were qualified as well as four other contrac *288 tors. … Any fair reading of that language it seems to me indicates that it clearly contemplates recovery of recydables through a recycling program, followed by marketing.

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

Sluka v. Landau Uniforms, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2005

COBRA, 29 U.S.C. § 1161 , states that “each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the plan as a result of a qualifying event is entitled, under the plan, to elect, within the election period, continuation coverage … Termination is listed as a “qualifying event” under 29 U.S.C. § 1163 .