Case law

United State v. G-I Holdings Inc. (In Re G-I Holdings Inc.)

369 B.R. 832 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 8, 2007

Webster’s defines fixed as “to establish definitely.” Webster’s II New College Dictionary 423 (Margery S. Berube et al. eds., 2001). … A distribution of Treasury Bonds that could vary in amount by $48,000,000 is not “a definite, established value.” Therefore, the 1994 Amendment does not qualify for the Binding Contract Exception.

Brotspies v. Dept. of Civil Service, NJ

66 N.J. Super. 492 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 4, 1961

Should the ratio be 0.00, the item is considered to be not only a failure, but a negative factor in discriminating between the qualified and the unqualified. … Plaintiffs failed to establish that the questions were not fair and clearly put, or that they did not explore an area of knowledge and information appropriate to the Supervisor of Case Work position.

Robbins v. Camden City Board of Education

105 F.R.D. 49 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 22, 1985

The relevance of statistical data in a disparate treatment Title VII case has been clearly established. In McDonnell-Doug *59 las Corp. v. … On the other hand, some of the interrogatories in this group clearly exceed the scope of plaintiff’s allegations.

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.

State v. Popovich

405 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2009

"This includes full proof that the equipment was in proper order, the operator qualified and the test given correctly." Ibid. (citation omitted). In our judgment, State v. … By its use of the preposition "at," the rule clearly envisions an expert observing trial proceedings and then commenting upon what he has heard.

Dcpp v. C.R.A.G. and R.G., in the Matter of J.G., J.G., and J.G.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 6, 2024

However, establishing a prima facie case of abuse does not automatically establish culpability. Rather, DCPP maintains the burden of proving the abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. … The court, however, did not clearly articulate whether it also limited its findings to defendants' conduct before that fateful day.

State of New Jersey v. Jeremy Arrington

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 2024

Arrington, could be qualified to make such an assessment of his own mental capacity . . . … In the end, I concur in the outcome, concluding that the trial court's ruling was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result.

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.

Lourdes Medical Center v. Board of Review

197 N.J. 339 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 27, 2009

The new law accomplished that end by requiring employers to accumulate “unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed after qualifying periods of employment.” … Significantly, Lourdes did not have to close down to qualify for a work stoppage.

McIntosh v. Milano

168 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 12, 1979

They did uphold the therapists' contention that statutory immunity insulated them from liability for failure to confine. 17 Cal. 3d at 447 , 131 Cal. Rptr. at 31 , 551 P. 2d at 351 . … If accepted, defendant's argument would establish a sphere of immunity from liability "for the foreseeable results" of the action or inaction of a therapist (assuming the factfinder might reasonably find it was a foreseeable

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.

J. L. Mott Iron Works v. Gunn

67 N.J.L. 591 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1902

I think as to those the right of the plaintiffs to recover has been established.” … Instead of a qualified refusal, there was an absolute direction for such a recovery. For this reason there must be a reversal of the judgment, and a venire de novo. For affirmance — None.

Muhammad v. New Jersey Transit

176 N.J. 185 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2003

In the findings and declarations section of the Public Transportation Act, which established NJT, the Legislature found that [a]s a matter of public policy, it is the responsibility of the State to establish and provide for … S & W clearly was an independent contractor of NJT.

Hovland v. Director, Div. of Taxation

204 N.J. Super. 595 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 25, 1985

Clearly, plaintiff is a member of the class intended to benefit from the constitutional amendments adopted and the implementing legislation. … Thus, we are not concerned here with whether a taxpayer qualifies for an exemption, deduction or rebate.

McKenna v. Pacific Rail Service

817 F. Supp. 498 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1993

Lindh and Petruzzelli — were not qualified. The evidence at trial established that all the plaintiffs, through their shop steward, informed McCormick of their interest in employment with Pacific Rail. … Plaintiffs are clearly the prevailing parties in this case. Once entitlement to an attorney’s fee award is established, the issue becomes how a “reasonable fee” is to be set.

TWC REALTY v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust.

315 N.J. Super. 205 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1998

Clearly, the proposed congregate care housing facility for the elderly, with or without a Mount Laurel component, qualifies as an inherently beneficial use under New Jersey case law. See, e.g., Jayber, Inc. v. … adjustment is an independent administrative agency whose powers stem directly from the Legislature and hence are not subject to abridgment, circumscription, extension or other modification by" and therefore is ordinarily "Immune

Dcpp v. C.R.A.G. and R.G., in the Matter of J.G., J.G., and J.G.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 6, 2024

However, establishing a prima facie case of abuse does not automatically establish culpability. Rather, DCPP maintains the burden of proving the abuse or neglect by a preponderance of the evidence. … The court, however, did not clearly articulate whether it also limited its findings to defendants' conduct before that fateful day.

Providence Pediatric Medical Daycare, Inc. v. Alaigh

799 F. Supp. 2d 364 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 28, 2011

A mandatory category of medical assistance that participating states must provide in order to qualify for Medicaid are early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment (“EPSDT”) services for children. … Procedural due process does not protect every benefit; rather, to have a property interest in a benefit, a person must clearly have more than an abstract need or desire and more than a unilateral expectation of receiving

State v. Kirby Lenihan (071497)

219 N.J. 251 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 18, 2014

Defendant argues that a violation of the Seat Belt Law, therefore, does not qualify as a predicate offense for N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18b. … Defendant notes that such a law clearly protects public health and safety.

ERICKSON v. TD BANK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 2021

.” = Complaint (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from … Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir. 2002) (non-prisoner indigent plaintiffs are “clearly within the scope of § 1915(e)(2)”). See also Lopez v.