Case law

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.

MACDONALD v. SABANDO

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2025

to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” … Div. 2008) (noting the Board’s dual purpose of granting licensure to qualified physicians and protecting New Jersey citizens).

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.

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.

State v. Haren

124 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1973

This conclusion, however, was qualified by the determination that the state had a correlative interest in regulation of that right. … As a consequence, the court established certain limits or guidelines within which a state may validly regulate abortions because of its "important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant

McLaughlin v. Rosanio, Bailets & Talamo, Inc.

331 N.J. Super. 303 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 17, 2000

On the other hand, "slander per se," the doctrine involved in this appeal, refers to four categories of slander which are considered so clearly damaging to reputation that a plaintiff may establish a cause of action without … As radio broadcasts are not clearly slander (the consensus elsewhere is that they are libel), the slander per se analysis should not be applied here.

Baldwin Const. Co. v. ESSEX COUNTY BD. OF TAX.

24 N.J. Super. 252 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1952

with those courts to enforce or to fail to enforce rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as to justify acceptance of jurisdiction by the federal courts to protect those rights, even against the general jurisdictional rule immunizing … statute under the State Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that it was the duty of the administrative body to accept the statute as constitutional until such time as it had been declared unconstitutional by a qualified

Berkley Arms Apartment Corp. v. Hackensack City

6 N.J. Tax 260 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 15, 1983

The proofs clearly established that the structure was of fireproof construction, was 78 feet in height and was 26-years of age as of the assessment date. … The 46% figure was obviously an estimate in view of the fact that only 38 tenants had qualified as of the assessment date.

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

DURHAM v. DAVIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2021

App’x 163, 170 (3d Cir. 2015), and state officers are immune from suit for money damages to the extent they are named as Defendants in their official capacity. See, e.g., O'Donnell v. … Because Plaintiff has not clearly identified the program, service, or activity which he was allegedly denied, nor has he pled facts showing he was denied any such service, program, or activity because of his back issues

Crumley v. Stonhard, Inc.

920 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 4, 1996

In opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff argues that “it is not clearly established that the Plan at issue was unfunded. This is a disputed question of fact and, a such, summary judgment cannot be granted.” … Plaintiff' seeks to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law only if the Plan is not a qualified plan under ERISA.

Cherry Hill Industrial Properties v. Voorhees Tp.

3 N.J. Tax 63 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 14, 1981

Since the farmland assessments were granted for the subject properties for the tax years 1977 and 1978, there is a presumption that all of the requirements of the act to qualify for a farmland assessment had been met. … The two omitted assessment statutes, supra, clearly require that a specific property be omitted, i. e., left out, not mentioned.

State v. Maas & Waldstein Co.

83 N.J. Super. 211 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 1964

In such circumstances, the defense of sovereign immunity would not be available to plaintiff. Indeed, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is currently in disfavor. See McCabe v. N.J. … These drawings clearly show that the federal consent extended beyond the very limited area of the railroad bridge to which defendant refers.

Allaire's Heirs v. Allaire

39 N.J.L. 113 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1876

In my judgment, it would be clearly an error to admit such an opinion for the consideration of a jury. … The rule is well established that a general objection cannot prevail to evidence which is-good in part.'

Demos v. Lyons

151 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1977

Establishing the finality of a payment tends to assure stability in people's affairs. … The moment when payment has thus been "finalized" often becomes important to establish priorities ( e.g., between an attaching creditor of drawer and a payee) or to establish when the payor must have a prevailing equity to

Merli v. Heckler

600 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 1984

The court recognizes that the EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such, it must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. Ruckelshaus v. … Plaintiff’s application clearly states that compensation is sought only for services performed before this court and not for work performed in the agency proceedings.

M.G. v. Crisfield

547 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 2008

Morgan, 229 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir.2000), and New Jersey law clearly provides A.G. the right to a free public education. … Again, Section 504 requires a plaintiff to establish the following elements: “(1) he is ‘disabled’ as defined by the Act; (2) he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate in school activities; (3) the school or the board of

In Re the Estate of McFeely

10 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 1952

Clearly Joseph B. McFeely as the personal representative of Bernard N. … Clearly that is not the purpose of a proceeding for the appointment of a substituted administrator.