Case law

State v. Conners

129 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 26, 1974

The County Court judge did not knowingly sign the order of September 4, 1973 and clearly had no intention to do so. … R. 67, and failed to lay any foundation qualifying the inspection certificates as business records under Evid. R. 63(13). See State v. McGeary, supra . Furthermore, while we expressly held in State v.

Deg, LLC v. Township of Fairfield

198 N.J. 242 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 25, 2009

It does not immunize the use from the requirements of other state laws and regulations. Do-Wop, supra, 168 N.J. at 198 , 773 A2d 706 . … As noted above, if the applicant qualifies, the certificate issues as a matter of right.

Kohn v. AT & T CORP.

58 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 1999

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Kohn must establish (1) he is forty years of age or older and therefore belongs to a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position from which he was discharged … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, Kohn must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) he belongs to a protected class under the ADA, (2) he was otherwise qualified to perform

NAHAS v. SHORE MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2019

In order to qualify for immunity under the HCQIA, a professional review action must be taken: (1) in the reasonable belief that the action was in the furtherance … Because suspending Plaintiff for performing unauthorized surgeries on patients is clearly in the interest of furthering quality health care, Plaintiff cannot rebut the Act’s immunity for the 2011 suspension.

Joseph v. Passaic Hospital Ass'n.

26 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 1958

Its Constitution declares its object to be “the establishment, support and management of an institution for the care, cure and nurture of sick and injured persons of any creed, nationality or color,” and the establishment … The requirement of a hearing before “a man fails of reappointment” is quite clearly intended to protect the staff member against arbitrary, capricious and oppressive *569 action involving his professional qualifications,

State v. Hakum Brown; State v. Rodney Brown

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2021

SOMA requires qualifying sex offenders to wear an electronic ankle bracelet that tracks their movements via global positioning satellite (GPS). Id. at 277. … As the Poritz Court stated, “[l]abels, of course, do not ‘immunize [a law] from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause.’” Poritz, 142 N.J. at 62 (second alteration in original) (quoting Collins v.

Lopez v. Pitula

271 N.J. Super. 116 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1994

course requirement in effect on the date of the attorney’s admission, is in good standing, and maintains a bona fide office for the practice of law in this State regardless of where the attorney is domiciled____ A person not qualifying … In In re Sackman, 90 N.J. 521, 528-29 , 448 A.2d 1014 (1982), the Supreme Court amended R. 1:21- 1(a) to avoid challenges under the privileges and immunities, commerce and due process clauses of the Federal Constitution *

Romano v. Kimmelman

96 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1984

In order to use breathalyzer test results as evidence in a trial charging a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the State had clearly to establish that (1) the equipment was in proper order— that it was periodically inspected … Under Johnson , conditions of admissibility must be “clearly established.” 42 N.J. at 171 .

Cole National Corp. v. State Board of Examiners of Ophthalmic Dispensers & Ophthalmic Technicians

107 N.J. Super. 278 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 28, 1969

Eespondent Board was created and established by L. 1952, c. 336 (now N. J. S. … The statutory scheme protects the public by requiring those who actually examine eyes to be properly qualified.

Smith v. Board of Review

281 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1995

Here, Smith's admitted conduct in bringing food to a pre-operative patient, whose health or life could have been threatened during surgery if the mistake had not been discovered, clearly constitutes disqualifying misconduct … That conduct constituted the wilful disregard of established procedures.

Humane Society of the United States v. New Jersey State Fish & Game Council

70 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1976

The trial court’s opinion upheld plaintiffs’ position and ruled that a person otherwise qualified may not statutorily be excluded from appointment to the Eish and Game Council on the grounds that he or she is not either a … While information clearly within the realm of judicial notice should suggest the basis for this distinction, differences between the interests advanced by plaintiffs and those of the Sportmen’s Pederation were clearly established

Fs v. Ld

362 N.J. Super. 161 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2003

We begin our analysis with well-established principles of insurance law. In a dispute involving coverage under a liability policy, the insured has the burden "to bring the claims within the basic terms of the policy." … Here, the policy language clearly covers the negligent acts of the named insured's relatives who reside with him as a part of the same household. These defendants are thus entitled to be defended by Allstate.

ARSENIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2026

The ADA’s association provision prohibits a “covered entity” from “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the … qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4).

State v. R.E.B.

385 N.J. Super. 72 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

In this case, we first question whether Guenther established a “new rule.” … Defense counsel countered, however, that he “heard fairly loud and clearly [the judge’s] voice indicating that the boy couldn’t be any more heartbroken. I heard that very clearly and I don’t hear the best.”

State v. Towey

244 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1990

Clearly, the presumptive 15 year base prison term was the correct sentence for this offense. … The error committed by the sentencing judge in this case was in establishing the base term, not the parole ineligibility period.

Heckel v. Cranford Golf Club

97 N.J.L. 538 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 1922

Justice Depue (afterwards Chief Justice) stated the law clearly ir the case of Law v. Stokes, 32 N. J. … And when established it cannot, on the one hand, be qualified by the secret instructions of the principal, nor, on the other hand, be enlarged by the unauthorized representations of the agent.” Mr.

Fravega v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n

192 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 14, 1983

However, since plaintiffs were clearly represented by counsel at that point they had ample opportunity to negotiate that item then. … certain of the legislative history to that which applies upon the granting of a writ of attachment, the language of R. 4:60-5(a) dealing with writs speaks only in terms of “a probability” of success and does not contain qualifying

CALDERWOOD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 2026

Cir. 1997) (immunity is denied for acts which “a reasonable prosecutor would recognize as being ‘clearly outside his jurisdiction’ to represent the state before the court” (quoting Bauers v. … Without allegations that the actions of Defendants Finlay and Batton were so egregious and “clearly outside [their] jurisdiction,” Ernst, 108 F.3d at 502, these claims are likely barred by prosecutorial immunity.

State v. Regis

208 N.J. 439 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 14, 2011

Our construction of N.J.S.A 39:4-88(b) is thus consonant with established principles of statutory construction. | IV. … This interpretation ignores important language in this sixty-year-old statute; the Legislature qualified its mandate to remain in a single lane with the crucial phrase "as nearly as practicable.”

Shaler Ex Rel. Shaler v. TOMS RIVER OBSTETRICS & GY-NECOLOGY ASSOCIATES

383 N.J. Super. 650 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2006

It is well-settled that the insured bears the burden of establishing that a claim lies within the policy's scope of coverage. F.S. v. … Here, there is no question that the language used to describe the "coverage-trigger" clearly communicates that, as condition of coverage under the excess policy, the limits of the underlying primary policy must be paid.