Case law

RAY v. ELECNOR HAWKEYE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 2023

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the … To establish a prima facie case of a failure to accommodate under the ADA, Plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) she is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) she is otherwise qualified to perform the essential

Fiola v. NJ Treas. Dept.

193 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1984

IF YOU CAN QUALIFY FOR A RETIREMENT BENEFIT, NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY THAT YOU WISH TO APPLY FOR A SPECIFIC RETIREMENT BENEFIT, SINCE YOUR FAILURE TO NOTIFY OUR OFFICE WILL JEOPARDIZE YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS. … The statutory provision in question, N.J.S.A. 43:16A-11.2, not heretofore construed in a reported decision, provides in pertinent part as follows: Should a member, after having established 10 years of creditable service,

State v. Egan

84 N.J.L. 701 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1913

To convict the defendant of embezzlement four facts must be established by the state to the satisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt — (a) that he was county collector of Hudson county; (5) that he had funds of … I do not know that I can answer the question any more clearly than that. You must consider the case as a whole. You must draw your inference from that one fact, in the light of all the other circumstances in the case.

Independent Dairy Workers Union of Hightstown v. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees Local No. 680

23 N.J. 85 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 17, 1956

2— Is the picketing involved here immune from restraint by virtue of the constitutional right of free speech? Local 680 takes a most unusual position in suggesting that N. J. Const. 1947, Art. … Even in situations where the anti-injunction act is clearly applicable these are proper points of consideration. See N. J. 8. 2.4:15-53 (c).

Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union Local 54 v. Danzinger

536 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 1982

Labor organizations are not immune to the possibilities of corruption. … We can be asked to condemn a state statute as in conflict with national legislation only if the conflict is clearly shown, Allen-Bradley Local v.

Dabal v. Sodora

260 N.J. Super. 397 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1992

. *401 Clearly, both criteria must be addressed. As the Supreme Court explained in Oswin: We understand that one might view the "serious impact on plaintiff's life" test as somewhat subjective. … There is nothing in this motion record by which the defense attempts to contradict plaintiff's assertion that her objectively established injuries have had the serious impact she asserts on the way she lives.

JOWETT v. CHURCHILL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2021

immunity. … Bartle, 871 F.2d 331, 340–42 (3d Cir. 1989)). 11 Churchill does not appear to raise qualified immunity as a defense. [See generally Docket No. 26-1.]

Anderson v. DSM N.V.

589 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.)

Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc.

204 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.

Young v. Stevens

132 N.J.L. 124 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 14, 1944

It is well established that having qualified as medical doctors they are competent to testify on all medical subjects upon which they claim sufficient ability to express an opinion. … However, the complaint was clearly broad enough to cover such an allegatiori. There was no error therein.

Family Civil Liberties Union v. State

386 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2019

This case clearly falls on the Reynolds side of the Reynolds / Georgevich divide. … Plaintiffs have not established any ongoing injury in fact with respect to any theoretical refusal to permit them to record.

State v. Lewis

39 N.J.L. 501 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1877

Hence the introduction of the qualifying phrase “as nearly as may be,” which, while it implies a recognition of the fact that absolute certainty is not attainable, does also, in effect, require the commissioners to ascertain … error is in itself entirely unobjectionable, and would, probably, as suggested, be more satisfactory to the tax-payers, and might with propriety, and perhaps with advantage, have been adopted by the commissioners, it is clearly

Chemical New Jersey Holdings, Inc. v. Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation

22 N.J. Tax 606 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 2004

PLAINTIFF HAS MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT IT QUALIFIES AS A FINANCIAL BUSINESS CORPORATION. … Despite plaintiffs suggestion that its choice of filing status was merely a ministerial task, the decision was clearly of significant business importance.

Levine v. Bochiaro

135 N.J.L. 423 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 21, 1947

During the early hours of the morning of the next day, December 1st, 1945, an explosion of the oil burner occurred for reasons that are not clearly apparent. … The repairs to the oil burner were not in themselves a nuisance, and the evidence clearly reveals that the independent contractor chosen by defendants-appellants was expertly qualified in this -line of work.

State v. Allen

139 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 29, 1976

R. 63(10) because Watson's reference to the involvement of others is clearly not against his own interest. … These counts involve two of the patrons in the bar who were not robbed but were held at gunpoint with all the other occupants of the establishment.

McBride v. City of Jersey City

19 N.J. Misc. 637 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 18, 1941

Petitioner qualified as executrix and the respondent’s assessing authorities made a personal property assessment against the estate in her hands, for the year 1939, in the amount of $12,400. … It would clearly appear that the present ease is an a fortiori situation, and that the assessment must be sustained if the property was actually subject to taxation, as of October 1st, 1938.

Crowell v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.

206 N.J. Super. 298 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1984

Super. 153 (App.Div. 1982), the court, citing Pierce , said: "The task of a court is to distinguish between public policy and the employee's own values; the latter would not entitle the employee to immunity from discharge … "Judicial decisions" have established the equitable estoppel rule in a long parade of cases. For example, in N.J. Suburban Water Co. v.

Quinlan v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

425 N.J. Super. 335 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2012

She has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the credible evidence each item of damage that she claims. … Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 , 100 S.Ct. 1920, 1924 , 64 L.Ed. 2d 572, 578 , (1980) (placing the burden of proving qualified immunity in a civil rights case upon the defendant because such immunity "depends on facts peculiarly

Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino

104 N.J. 218 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1986

One court has gone so far as to indicate that it “is unable to understand why the most important element, the contents of the documents, has no Fifth Amendment privilege, but the Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this issue … The privilege against self-incrimination, “although not written into our State Constitution, is firmly established as part of our common law.” State v. Vinegra, 73 N.J. 484, 488 (1977) (citations omitted). See State v.

Guzzi v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.

20 N.J. Super. 296 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1952

Our review of the evidence, as will appear from the recital hereinabove, clearly establishes conflicting and contradictory testimony on the question of the liability of the defendant. … I am going to qualify that, however.