Case law

State, Tp. of Pennsauken v. Schad

160 N.J. 156 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1999

The qualifying term “outside” is undoubtedly the key element of the definition of “sign” under section 126-700.1. … Under that view, defendant’s displays qualify as signs because their message was directed solely outside the buildings.

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.

Healy v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ.

287 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 20, 1996

Healy's contention is clearly wrong. … The switch to fourteen continuous semesters clearly defined exactly when tenure attached.

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.

LUFT v. THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY OCCUPIED BY MICHELLE M. SMITH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2020

MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Even if Smith did not possess quasi-judicial immunity, she would be entitled to qualified immunity because … Smith did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” by following New Jersey’s expedited foreclosure case procedures.

Stopford v. Boonton Molding Co., Inc.

56 N.J. 169 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1970

At incorporation, Mecom, then owner of the company, acquired all of its stock except a few qualifying shares. … Adoption of the plan was clearly established. Even if there were a jury question on the subject a contrary verdict would be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.

NJ State League of Municipalities v. Kimmelman

197 N.J. Super. 89 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 1984

Chapter 220, as well as the entire legislative history, cannot more clearly express the intent of the Legislature that qualified property not be taxed and it is immaterial whether the property is to be excluded or omitted … To qualify as a park the land must contain no fewer than ten mobile home sites.

State v. Ravotto

169 N.J. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 2001

Furthermore, since our criminal law is to no small extent justified by the assumption of deterrence, the individual’s right to immunity from such invasion of the body as is involved in a properly safeguarded blood test is … Here, the record does not clearly indicate the ready availability of a Breathalyzer.

MacMillan v. Taxation Div. Director

180 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1981

To the extent the executive or the judiciary superimposes its judgment on the clearly expressed will of the Legislature, we threaten the doctrine itself and its function as a viable control on our government of laws. *178 … Bd. of Taxation, 31 N.J. 420, 431 (1960), "The judiciary has no power to devise tax programs or to qualify the existing legislative mandate with a judge's private view of what is just or sensible."

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.”

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).

Rich v. State

294 F. Supp. 3d 266 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2018

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the NJLAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) plaintiff was handicapped or disabled within the meaning of the statute; (2) plaintiff was qualified … The record clearly demonstrates Rich was terminated because of her employment performance, not disability.

United States v. Grossman

154 F. Supp. 813 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 12, 1957

So long as the defendants are-told that they have the option not to answer any questions, their rights are fully protected, and the fact that they are the subjects of the investigation does not make them immune from inquiries … But Congress clearly so intended. Its words in the statute penalize the use before a governmental agency of “any” false document.

State v. Kelly

97 N.J. 178 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1984

First, such general acceptance can be established by the testimony of knowledgeable experts. Second, authoritative scientific literature can be used to establish professional acceptance. … Veronen was clearly highly qualified to testify as an expert with respect to the psychological condition of battered women’s syndrome. Ante at 211.

MOSLEY v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2022

State Motion Defendant State of New Jersey and the Prosecutor Defendants argue that prosecutorial immunity, absolute immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and/or qualified … A prosecutor bears the “heavy burden” of establishing entitlement to absolute immunity. Light v. Haws, 472 F.3d 74, 80–81 (3d Cir. 2007).

In re the Estate of Reininger

388 N.J. Super. 289 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 2006

Gartlan and Meehan were qualified with the Surrogate on May 25, 2005. The assets that remain in the Reininger trust are the subject of the action before the court. … Moreover, the Will does not clearly indicate a contrary intention with respect to Edwin’s share.

Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Acetylene Welding Co.

259 F. 940 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 1916

The plaintiff, as against that defendant, is therefore clearly entitled to an injunction as broad as that which was preliminarily granted in this case. … One-half of the capital stock was divided equally between the Bournonvilles, and the remaining one-half between the Lorentowitzes; the son apparently taking only one share to qualify, him as a director.

State v. Deshawn P. Wilson(076609)

227 N.J. 534 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 19, 2017

Defendant also asserted that Rodbart’s affidavit was inadmissible as hearsay and did not qualify as a self- authenticating document. … Here, the defense clearly asserted the correct grounds for its objection at the time the trial court ruled on admission of the map.

Blair v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.

124 N.J. Super. 162 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 1973

They contend that the singling out of railroads for the grant of a special immunity, while not granting other common carriers a similar protection, is without a rational basis. … But the second proposition is qualified by limitations which compound the difficulties of one who assails the legislative decision.

BAYNARD v. MONA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

Meanwhile, a prosecutor has only qualified immunity for actions she takes “in 3 In light of the below ruling, the Court does not reach Defendants’ other arguments for dismissal. … The Third Circuit has previously indicated that “instituting grand jury proceedings without investigation” is “clearly . . . encompassed by the immunity doctrine as ‘intimately associated with the judicial phase of the