Case law

Swetland v. Swetland

102 N.J. Eq. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 6, 1928

This was a trust fund established on July 14th, 1917, by the testator for the benefit of the wife and children of his only son, Maurice J. Swetland. … That case clearly held that a gift to an executor is a complete testamentary disposition.

Piller v. Kovarsky

194 N.J. Super. 392 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1984

While the statutory privilege is not a direct bar to what the defendants seek to do here, it does confirm that the established public policy of this state recognizes a confidential relationship between patient and physician … This decision, in which the doctor merely provided medical testimony as to the cause of the condition he was treating, is clearly distinguishable from the issue at bar where the treating doctor wishes to offer to the jury

Communications Workers of America v. New Jersey Department of Personnel

154 N.J. 121 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 11, 1998

The Rule of Ten, although it broadens the pool of qualified applicants, requires appointments to be merit-based. … Moreover, we interpret this one-year limit to begin running at the time that the Commissioner establishes a program. We acknowledge a lack of specificity in the word “establish.”

Bank of New Jersey & Leo P. Dorsey v. Westminster Choir College

127 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1974

While there may be law in some other jurisdictions that it is the duty of an executor named in a will to defend and establish the will as against those who oppose its probate, see 95 O. J. … The affidavit of services he filed below reflects services in all four capacities, in many instances not clearly defined. As already noted, Mr.

BRENES v. THE CITY OF ASBURY PARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2020

Plaintiff’s constitutional claims; and 5) qualified immunity.3 I will address each of these arguments, in turn. … These allegations, even if credited, however, clearly relate to Prosecutor Butler’s role as prosecutor.4 Green v. United States, 418 F.

Melick v. Melick

17 N.J. Eq. 156 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1864

The petitioner admits that the residuary legatee is not a necessary party to the bill, but insists that under the'special circumstances of the case, the executor is not qualified to represent her interests. … She is clearly entitled to that privilege. It would he a reproach to the administration of justice, if the law were otherwise.

Gudgeon v. County of Ocean

135 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1975

This act merely establishes a seniority right which has heretofore been denied. [ Id. ] The statute was thereafter amended to apply to counties of the second class as well as those of the first class. … This legislative history clearly indicates that N.J.S.A. 40A:9-5 was intended to apply only to counties of the first and second classes.

M.E.F. v. A.B.F.

393 N.J. Super. 543 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2007

After spending down his assets, he qualified as a medically needy person for payment of his mu-sing home expenses by Medicaid. … His wife, M.E.F., received $576 per month from Social Security as her sole source of independent income—an amount that was clearly inadequate for her support.

Ortley Beach Property Owners Ass'n v. Fire Commissioners

320 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1998

The Legislature shall not pass any private, special or local laws: (8) Granting to any corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. … Finally, they conclude that the classification established by Section 11 is rationally related to the statute’s purpose.

Clark v. Safety-Kleen Corp.

179 N.J. 318 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 8, 2004

in this field is demonstrated by education, training or experience, and that a professional license or degree in medicine is not a prerequisite to establish sufficient knowledge to qualify as an expert. … Indeed, that documentation was made up of the same materials relied on by the defense experts, and plainly established the corrosive effects of cresols on skin. In short, Dr.

McQuitty v. General Dynamics Corp.

204 N.J. Super. 514 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 1985

As already noted, plaintiff's employment was clearly pursuant to the company's 1981 telegram and at-will. … Plaintiff's remaining contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

NANCY G. SLUTSKY VS. KENNETH J. SLUTSKY (FM-14-1535-08, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

451 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2017

Div. 1985) (reversal is required when the results could not "reasonably have been reached by the trial judge on the evidence, or whether it is clearly unfair or unjustly distorted by a … "For purposes of valuing the goodwill of a law practice, the true enhancement to be evaluated is the likelihood of repeat patronage and a certain degree of immunity from competition." Ibid.

Blatterfein v. Larken Associates

323 N.J. Super. 167 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1999

Neveroski ... seems to say very clearly that somebody like an architect should not be subject to the Consumer Fraud Act. However, I don't know whether I can follow that language at this point. … If Yarrington's architectural services had been retained by any of the plaintiffs directly there might be some merit to his argument that the general principle of Vort as illuminated by our dictum in Neveroski established

State v. Pometti

23 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1952

Examining into the circumstances surrounding the defendant's case in the matter sub judice, we find that he was represented by qualified counsel throughout the proceedings; that counsel had numerous consultations with him … We are of the opinion that defendant's application for leave to establish proof of the implications was properly denied.

Nj St. College Council v. Higher Ed. Bd.

181 N.J. Super. 179 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 1981

Set policy on salary and fringe benefits, and establish general personnel policies for the public institutions of higher education; .... … order, when, and if, a vacancy in a position for which such professor, associate professor, assistant professor, *190 instructor, supervisor, registrar, teacher, or other person employed in a teaching capacity shall be qualified

Brennan v. Board of Education, Jersey City, New Jersey

374 F. Supp. 817 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1974

Building Service Workers”) in such establishment at salaries and resulting rates less than the salaries and hourly rates at which it pays male custodial workers in such establishment, “for equal work on jobs the performance … In fact, the Board has continuously, though erroneously, insisted that it is immune from federal law and prevented by state law from raising pay rates.

OWEN R. MCFARLANE, M.D. VS. SOUTHERN JERSEY FAMILY MEDICAL CENTERS, INC. (L-2893-18, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 30, 2021

The Trial Court Erred in Applying the Immunity Statute Because Dr. McFarlane Had Rebutted the Presumption of Immunity by Establishing that the Investigation and Hearing Were Not Fair. i. … New Jersey also has an immunity statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-22.10, which provides broad immunity from damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital's peer review process.

State v. M.J.K.

369 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2004

It was in these aspects of the experts’ analyses that the divergence of opinions most clearly exposed the flaws in Joseph’s methodology. … Joseph is not, in general, qualified to determine competence to stand trial.

Arthur v. St. Peters Hospital

169 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1979

Super. 567, 570 (Law Div. 1979). [3] The general rule of immunizing persons from vicarious liability for the negligent acts of independent contractors has been applied equally to hospitals. … Here, however, the exception is clearly inapplicable since the negligence complained of has nothing to do with the danger of x-rays. [4] This conclusion relates to liability of a hospital to its patient.

Wilson v. Paradise Village Beach Resort & Spa

395 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2007

We conclude that such promotional activity does not establish the continuous and substantial presence within New Jersey required to establish the general jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts over a nonresident defendant. … It is undisputed that defendants are not qualified to do business in New Jersey and have not designated an agent for service of process in New Jersey.