Case law

Vulcan Detinning Co. v. American Can Co.

72 N.J. Eq. 387 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 2, 1907

It is never a rule of evidence by which the actual possession of knowledge by the principal can, in point of fact, be established. … This is the test established by the case of State v.

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.

Bd. of Ed., Passaic v. BD. OF ED. OF WAYNE

120 N.J. Super. 155 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 6, 1972

Peoples Bank and Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954), summary judgment may be rendered when the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with affidavits submitted on the motion, show clearly that … seq. does not apply to all of the children at the shelter, this court is of the opinion that no part of the educational program conducted at the shelter can fall within the statute merely because some of the pupils would qualify

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.

Seidel v. Peschkaw

27 N.J.L. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1859

. *430 He has not the immunities of an ambassador, but in civil and in criminal cases is subject to the local laws, in the same manner as other foreign residents owing temporary allegiance to the state to which he is accredited … Their compensation is by salary, paid by the United States, or by fees, according to the rates established by act of congress.

Environmental Tectonics Corp. v. W.s. Kirkpatrick & Co.

659 F. Supp. 1381 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 1987

As such the State Department fails to clearly “sign off” on the application of the act of state doctrine in this case. … The magistrate’s decision to uphold Carpenter’s Fifth Amendment claim has not been shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

State v. DeLane

207 N.J. Super. 45 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1986

Such a volunteered statement, not made in response to custodial interrogation, is immune from exclusion under Miranda and its progeny. … Sugar , 100 N.J. at 237 The court, therefore, established "a restrictive formulation of the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule ...

Cavanagh v. Morris County Democratic Committee

121 N.J. Super. 430 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 1, 1972

Any special committee established by defendant must be considered a part of tile Democratic Committee. … A. 19:34-52 clearly prohibits such activity. *437 This statute cannot bo given any other meaning. In interpreting statutory words, they are to be given their common usage. Ford Motor Co. v. N. J.

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

McCANNA v. SILLS

103 N.J. Super. 480 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1968

However, it would appear that the number of such schools in New Jersey is minimal, and it follows that the number of such children not qualifying for transportation benefits is inconsequential. … an improper legislative intent within the comprehension of the First Amendment would be clearly erroneous.

Chiniewicz v. Henderson

202 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 2002

Slager testified that plaintiffs disability “makes him not qualified to be a manager.” Slag-er dep. at 127: 13-14. … Slager, clearly indicates otherwise. See Slager dep. at 32, 33, 37; DeSoto dep. at 352.

In Re Adoption of Child by IT and KT

164 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 14, 1978

As a consequence of this finding, he concluded: Only in the implementation of the clearly stated policy of the Legislature does there lie a real opportunity of inhibiting and suppressing the opprobrious black market in children … The trial judge found that "they qualify financially and culturally, but they do not qualify legally." DYFS submitted a report which paints the *492 T.'

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.

Township of Piscataway v. Concerned Citizens for Chronic Psychiatric Adults

200 N.J. Super. 615 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 1985

Bor. of Farmingdale, 55 N.J. 103, 112 (1969). ... this is clearly a ease involving only legal questions not calling for the exercise of administrative expertise. … When read in its broad sense with an understanding that it encompasses both groups, it is clear that the statute provides different preconditions for qualifying as a specially-excepted facility under the Land Use Act.

Adams v. DelMonte

309 N.J. Super. 572 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 1998

Their complaint challenging the decision, filed nine months later, was clearly untimely. … Here, however, whether a septic tank cleaning service qualifies as a home occupation under the ordinance is essentially a legal question.

Global Naps, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.

287 F. Supp. 2d 532 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2003

Furthermore, “[u]nder Rule 12(c), like Rule 12(b)(6), judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter … immunity.