Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.53s
178 N.J. Super. 46 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1981
Title 44, chapter 10, establishes a program for assistance for dependent children. … To hold otherwise would clearly frustrate the intent of our Aid to Dependent Children Program, and allow public funds to be utilized for the benefit of unintended beneficiaries.
Cited 1 timesPublishedE & H Steel Corp. v. PSEG Fossil, LLC
455 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 2018
He stated that plaintiff's "affirmative claim and the construction liens" arising from the CD drawings and their added complexity, "were based on a written contract" and "clearly based on a good faith dispute and not a willful … Div. 2012) (expert testimony needed for establishing proper repair and inspection of an automobile).
Cited 26 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TERRELL TUCKER (21-01-0129, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2022
Defendant asserted that the State's failure to qualify Egan as an expert witness made the impermissible testimony even more egregious. … 'about his belief as to what had happened,'" that testimony constitutes expert opinion, regardless of whether the officer had been qualified. State v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDcpp 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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedFleming v. Associated Credit Servs., Inc.
342 F. Supp. 3d 563 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 21, 2018
So which is it: does a device qualify as an ATDS only if it can generate random or sequential numbers to be dialed, or can it so qualify even if it lacks that capacity? … Fleming clearly expressed her inability to pay and personal hardships: "I am unemployed right now. I just got myself out of a domestic violence relationship. I fled and I have nothing.
Cited 12 timesPublishedRosa v. Resolution Trust Corp.
752 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 1990
In that case, however, the court did not hold that the FDIC is immune from ERISA regulations once it acts as an ERISA fiduciary. … To find otherwise would make the RTC completely immune from any judicial review and arbiter of its own actions.
Cited 3 timesPublishedBarone v. Leukemia Society of America
42 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 25, 1998
The New Jersey Supreme Court has established employment-at-will as the prevailing doctrine in this state. See Bernard v. IMI Systems, Inc., 131 N.J. 91, 105 , 618 A.2d 338 (1993). … On August 9, 1996, plaintiff sent a note to the Society that clearly indicated her desire to return to work. The note stated, inter alia: “My husband passed away this morning. This changes my plans drastically.
Cited 17 timesPublishedDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2025
Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (“Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages.”); and 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states, in … First, the SAC fails to establish that the Officer Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, such that qualified immunity applies. See James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 679 (3d Cir. 2012).
Cited 0 timesUnknown405 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.
Cited 3 timesPublished90 N.J. 491 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 1982
In return for his statement, he was given immunity from prosecution for all crimes except the jewelry theft. … That history shows that the language relied on by the Appellate Division in Valerius as clearly restricting the remedy to provision of counsel in advance (allowing reimbursement only upon acquittal of charges brought by the
Cited 19 timesPublished150 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 1977
In my view, no ordinary person, whether judge or juror, is qualified to make the difficult judgments which these cases require. … Although not apparent to most, to the viewer whose perceptions have been cultivated these values are clearly present.
Cited 2 timesPublished67 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.
Cited 13 timesPublishedMcKenna 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.
Reversed in part, on other grounds by a later decision, 32 F.3d 820 (1994)Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict 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).
Cited 0 timesUnknown204 N.J. 286 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 2010
The Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 to -11, established a unified theory of recovery for harm caused by products. … A prefabricated home that gave off fumes and sickened its residents, for example, would certainly qualify. See, e.g., Schipper v.
Cited 34 timesPublishedNM v. Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services
405 N.J. Super. 353 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 2009
The Medicaid Program established by Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C.A. § 1396 to § 1396w-1, is a joint federal-state program designed to provide medical assistance to individuals "whose income and … decisions are supposed to extend to the CMS's interpretation of the federal statutes governing Medicaid, the CMS's interpretation should be followed unless an adversely affected party can show that this interpretation is clearly
Cited 19 timesPublishedDistrict 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).
Cited 0 timesUnknown589 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 2008
Plaintiff fails to prove that she is a “qualified individual.” … In her submissions, Anderson attempts to establish her status as a qualified individual by referring this Court to positive reviews she received during her tenure with DPI. {See PI. Opp. Br., p. 25-26.)
Cited 8 timesPublished324 N.J. Super. 66 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1996
Kadane, an eminently qualified statistician. Among his many credentials, Dr. … Thereon he clearly said that he did not want targeting or discriminatory enforcement and that "[w]hen you put on this uniform, you leave your biases and your prejudices behind."
Cited 40 timesPublished426 N.J. Super. 276 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 2012
The court rejected the plaintiff-father's position that the parties' prior agreement essentially immunized him from having to pay increased, guideline-level support. … Clearly, neither of these events would justify reducing defendant's child support obligation.
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna