Case law

Linek v. Korbeil

333 N.J. Super. 464 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2000

In 1987, after qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) were authorized by federal statute, a consent order was entered to satisfy the requirements of the pension administrator. … Clearly, the intent of Judge O'Donnell was to apply Kikkert . There's no doubt what Kikkert requires and plaintiff should receive the full share she's entitled to under the law.

Lawes v. Lynch

6 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 4, 1950

In our quest of this objective in the present case we are furnished with various established guide posts to which resort is made. … In the present case the clearly expressed language of the will makes the invoking of the canon of construction against intestacy inappropriate.

Cole National Corp. v. State Board of Examiners of Ophthalmic Dispensers & Ophthalmic Technicians

57 N.J. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 7, 1970

Unless clearly ultra vires on their face, the person attacking them has the burden of proving otherwise. In re Weston, 36 N. J. 358 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U. S. 864 , 83 S. Ct. 1029 , 8 L. … Licensed Dispensers are thereby immunized against competition and enjoy an exclusive control of the market. This is patently not the purpose for which the statute was enacted.

Ukranian National Urban Renewal Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation

3 N.J. Tax 326 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 11, 1981

A perusal of the various sections of that provision indicates that the only possible paragraph under which plaintiff might qualify is paragraph (e). It provides for an exemption from the corporate business tax for ... … Here plaintiff has not clearly and convincingly established its right to the exemption.

State v. Cunningham

186 N.J. Super. 502 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 1982

Clearly, the statutory design is to prevent firearms from coming into the hands of persons likely to pose a danger to the public. … It expressly provides that no one shall "purchase" or "receive ... or otherwise acquire" a gun unless qualified under law.

State v. Kittrell

279 N.J. Super. 225 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 1995

In adopting the tests of reliability established by the Supreme Court in State v. … Because enough evidence was presented to qualify Detective Mordaga as an expert in this area, the trial court's error in failing to specifically qualify him as an expert was harmless.

Heinl v. Heinl

287 N.J. Super. 337 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 1996

The wife's interest in the pension shall be subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. … Clearly, the written provision in the judgment contradicts the express language of the judge's written opinion.

WT Grant Co. v. Walsh

100 N.J. Super. 60 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1968

Plaintiff sues on a contract for the establishment of a retail installment sales account. Defendant Janet P. … These statements were clearly untrue and were relied upon by Mrs. Walsh. Mrs.

New Jersey Ass'n of Health Care Facilities v. Finley

83 N.J. 67 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 28, 1980

Although the State Medicaid program reimbursed qualified *74 nursing homes which voluntarily accepted indigents for their care at standard rates, the homes could generally obtain greater fees from private paying patients … Administrative regulations enjoy a presumption of legality and unless clearly ultra vires on their face, and we have held they are not, the person attacking them has the burden of proving their invalidity.

BAREL v. JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2020

immunity, which “protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … “[T]he sale of [Plaintiff’s] property did not violate any clearly established rights because the Sheriff acted pursuant to a valid state court judgment.” Gage, 521 F.

In Re Gutkowski

135 N.J. Eq. 93 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1943

Justice Blatchford said in Re Devoe Manufacturing Co., 108 U.S. 401 , 413 ; 2 S.Ct. 894 , 902 ; 27 L.Ed. 764 : "* * * The jurisdiction thus conceded to New York [in article IV] is, clearly, a limited one, and cannot, in any … . * * *" He concludes the opinion in the following language: "* * * and that the sovereignty of the State of New Jersey is co-extensive with the territorial limits thus established, subject only to such extra-territorial

Jarrett v. Duncan Thecker Associates

175 N.J. Super. 109 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1980

West Shore Equipment of Milwaukee, 68 Wis. 2d 42 , 227 N.W. 2d 660 (1975), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that it is immaterial that an entity which may be partly responsible is not a party or is immune from further … [Emphasis supplied] The statute clearly limits the jury's deliberations to parties to the suit, rather than parties to the transaction.

S.S. v. E.S.

243 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1990

The tests shall be performed by a qualified expert appointed by the court. b. The court, upon reasonable request by a party, shall order that independent tests be performed by other qualified experts. c. … It is clearly within the power of the State to provide for the enforcement of the parental duty to support one’s children.

MESSINA v. THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2021

Accordingly, the CDC has clearly opined that these constitute “vaccines.” … New Jersey colleges and universities are allowed to “establish additional requirements for student immunizations and documentation that such institution shall determine appropriate and which is recommended by

Trail v. Green

206 F. Supp. 896 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 2, 1962

Defendant argues that by virtue of the New Jersey charitable immunity statute, supra, the matter in controversy cannot be considered to exceed the sum or value of $10,000. … We must bear in mind examination of the authorities establishes that the acknowledged policy is non-sympathy *900 to expanding federal jurisdiction in diversity cases. In Horton v.

State v. Maddox

153 N.J. Super. 201 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 26, 1977

R. 2:10-2 requires an appellate court to disregard errors unless "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." … The denial of the motion for a new trial was clearly mandated by the proofs and reasonable inferences therefrom.

Commercial Cleaning Corp. v. Sullivan

47 N.J. 539 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 12, 1966

Instead the legislative purpose clearly seems to be to confer on the Director broad discretion to determine who is the “responsible bidder”; which bid will be most advantageous to the State, “price and other factors considered … accepted only” from persons qualified in accordance with such classification.

Fountain House of New Jersey, Inc. v. Montague Township

13 N.J. Tax 387 · New Jersey Tax Court · Sep 21, 1993

(citation omitted) The undisputed facts of this case establish that ... [taxpayer] and [its corporate parent] failed to meet that prerequisite for a tax exemption. … The benefit to the members was indirect and clearly insufficient to support the claimed exemption. Church Contribution Trust v. Mendham Bor., supra, 9 N.J.Tax at 311 ; Harvey Cedars v. Sisters of Charity of St.

Borough of Hamburg v. Trustees of the Presbytery

28 N.J. Tax 311 · New Jersey Tax Court · Feb 11, 2015

Accordingly, the burden is on the Presbytery to prove it qualifies for exemption, even though the Presbytery prevailed at the County Board. … The court finds that the testimony during trial adequately established that a substantial quantity of religious artefacts were stored in the Church.

H. v. H.

59 N.J. Super. 227 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1959

If the rule in adultery cases is applicable by analogy, inclination, opportunity, and, indeed, indulgence are clearly established. Corroboration, by circumstances and tacit admission, is amply made out. … We conclude that the required harmful effect of defendant's behavior has been sufficiently established.