Case law

Evans v. Gloucester Township

124 F. Supp. 3d 340 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2015

For this same reason, the Court finds that Plaintiff^ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims, to the extent based on an allegedly improper prosecution, are not clearly time-barred. … Having so concluded, the Court need not consider Defendants' qualified immunily argument. .

In Re Rawls

197 N.J. Super. 78 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1984

Therefore, the court [1] , sua sponte, ordered both the special policeman and the security company to show cause why they should not be restrained from such activity without said employee qualifying under the Private Detective … The regulatory provisions of N.J.A.C. 13:55-1.8 precluding a police officer from becoming or acting as a qualifying member, officer, or director of a private detective agency, do not prohibit the officer from becoming or

State v. Phelps

187 N.J. Super. 364 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1983

Whether or not the conspiracy has been established by sufficient, independent evidence, Glasser v. … This exception is clearly pecuniary in nature.

State v. G.C.

188 N.J. 118 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2006

The trial court concluded that it “considered] the witness to have been sworn and qualified to present testimony.” Once the prosecution rested, defendant presented his case. … Stated differently, our “system of justice ... has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception!)]” Germann v.

HOBBS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR OF LABOR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2024

A facial challenge asserts that “the complaint, on its face, does not allege sufficient grounds to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 438 (D.N.J. 1999). … So unless the State waived its immunity or Congress abrogated the State’s immunity, “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars such suits.” Id. at 66; see Durham v.

MACELLARI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 2026

While IFP status is not reserved solely for the “absolutely destitute[,]” the litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. … Under the doctrine of judicial immunity, “a judge is not immune from liability for nonjudicial actions, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s judicial capacity” or “for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the

Borough of Franklin Lakes v. Mutzberg

226 N.J. Super. 46 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1988

In order for the subject property to qualify for a Farmland Assessment, an applicant must establish the following on or before August 1 of the pre-tax year: ownership of at least five acres of land which had been devoted … The record before the trial judge, and before us, establishes that Mutzberg’s mother qualified as a senior citizen because *59 she was over age 65 when she applied for the deduction and otherwise fulfilled the requirements

Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. City of East Orange

17 N.J. Tax 298 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 27, 1998

Testimony at trial and security log books maintained at each church clearly show that, usually, no more than two persons were present at each Mass: the pastor and the security guard for the church. … religious use is established, does the religious organization need to establish a certain level, amount, or quantum of use to qualify for the exemption; (3) is the storage of religious artifacts and other church property

MILLER v. RIVAS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2022

It is established that, generally, a judge is immune from liability for all actions taken in his judicial capacity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978). … To determine whether an act qualifies as a judicial act, courts look to “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether

B.P.U.M. Development & Urban Renewal Corp. v. City of Camden

9 N.J. Tax 490 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 29, 1988

The claimants have the burden of proof to establish qualification. Bloomfield v. Academy of Med. of N.J., 47 N.J. 358 , 221 A.2d 15 (1966); Princeton Univ. Press v. Princeton, 35 N.J. 209 , 172 A.2d 420 (1961). … Real estate assessments, which constitute the bulk of a municipality’s income are established as of October 1 of the pretax year. N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.

Bodnarchuk v. Board of Review

309 N.J. Super. 399 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 1998

The Board's additional determination that plaintiff did not establish the base year pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(c)(1) is not relevant to this proceeding. … Plaintiff never contended that he qualified under that provision of the statute.

Stephens v. of Howard

32 N.J. Eq. 244 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1880

The authority of the court must be considered established. It is, however, a power of great delicacy, and should, be exercised very sparingly and with the utmost caution. … There are persons with so little capacity to acquire musical knowledge, that *248 the whole fortune of these children might be spent upon one of them without qualifying her to teach even the rudiments successfully.

Johnson v. Guhl

166 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2001

In their second amended complaint, 2 Plaintiffs challenge the treatment of the CSATs as countable resources in determining Medicaid eligibility and seek immunity from its application to them. … Judge Bassler explained that: The purpose of the trust is to qualify the institutionalized spouse for Medicaid benefits.

James F. Walters v. Ymca

437 N.J. Super. 111 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 18, 2014

Applying the Gershon factors, we emphasize "that business establishments in New Jersey have well-established duties of care to patrons that come upon their … As we have already noted, business establishments in New Jersey have well-established duties of care to patrons that come upon their premises.

A.M. VS. MONMOUTH COUNTY BOARD OF SOCIAL SERVICES (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 2021

Nevertheless, if our review of the record shows that the agency's finding is clearly mistaken, the decision is not entitled to judicial deference. … The applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to the exemption.

V.C. v. M.J.B.

163 N.J. 200 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 6, 2000

Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status. … Indeed, *229 “[t]he denial of visitation rights is such an extraordinary proscription that it should be invoked only in those exceptional cases where it clearly and convincingly appears that the granting of visitation will

Landrigan v. Celotex Corp.

127 N.J. 404 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1992

In Hake , the plaintiffs offered the testimony of a trained first-aider to establish the lifesaving potential of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). … We are confident that a careful charge, clearly explaining the elements necessary for each finding, can assist juries in reaching fair verdicts on both the liability phase and, should they reach the question, punitive *427

Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.

396 N.J. Super. 267 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 18, 2007

a potential violation of any clearly established legal right. … Those allegations are therefore sufficient to establish a potential violation of the TCCWNA because a consumer contract that violates a clearly established legal right under the CFA regulations is also a violation of the

Smith & Solomon Trucking Co. v. United States

120 F. Supp. 277 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 1954

This is the primary test under the statute and ■unless the application qualified under that test the Commission had no authority to allow it. … Nor ■does the Patterson decision, cited as favorable to plaintiff’s position, do other than clearly show its untenability.

State v. Weil

421 N.J. Super. 121 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 5, 2011

It is the defense's position that since she had a bank account with $10,000.00 in it, she certainly would not have qualified for a public defender. … This is not a situation where defendant clearly disputed the documentary evidence and categorically denied being represented by counsel at the 1994 municipal court hearing.