Case law

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.

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

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.

Dale v. Boy Scouts of America

308 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1998

The BSA’s national membership criteria are clearly less restrictive than those applied by the local club in Kiwanis Int’l . … Such a result is clearly inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the LAD.

In Re Presentment by Camden Co. Grand Jury

34 N.J. 378 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 21, 1961

The presentment is immune. It is like the `hit and run' motorist. Before application can be made to suppress it, it is the subject of public gossip. The damage is done. … Such reprobation clearly tends to deprive Pierce of his good name and to besmirch his character.

Barrister Cigars, LLC v. Dir., Div. of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 1, 2025

BC argues that as a distributor, it always qualifies to pay TPT at the wholesale price. … It is true that the definition of “wholesale price” clearly references a distributor.

Murray v. Great Gorge Resort, Inc.

360 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2003

Consequently, "The purpose of [the Ski Statute] is to make explicit a policy of this State which clearly defines the responsibility of ski area operators and skiers ...." N.J.S.A. 5:13-1b. … Clearly, there is no duty to warn of or prevent dirt areas, make snow or close trails. Thus, there can be no liability where there is no duty.

Schults v. Bd. of Ed. of Teaneck

86 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1964

Supp. 25, 33-34 ( D.C.N.J. 1964), upholding the validity of a plan establishing a central 6th grade school in Englewood, N.J. … In our view, the Commissioner is most qualified to determine whether a budget meets the requirements of those regulations, rather than the court.

State of New Jersey v. Rodney Armour

446 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2016

A trial court's ruling on a motion for a new trial "shall not be reversed unless it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage of justice under the law." … Further, it is not our intent to establish a bright-line rule where retesting of fingerprints is, or is not, required.

Santosuosso v. NovaCare Rehabilitation

462 F. Supp. 2d 590 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2006

New Jersey courts have recognized that in certain situations, defendants are entitled to qualified privilege. … Defendants claim that the accusation of falsification is true, and that it is protected by qualified privilege.

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

Morris v. Leddy

111 N.J. Eq. 129 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 27, 1932

It is a well established rule of law that a party to a fraud cannot profit thereby. The Grace Realty Company was a party to the fraud. … The proofs herein show Leddy and his wife were the sole stockholders (except for one qualifying share held by their lawyer) of the Grace Realty Company.

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.

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.

United States v. Manzo

714 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2010

Such an interpretation is not clearly within the scope of conduct covered by the statute. … Contrary to the Government’s assertions, a finding that Defendants’ behavior is not clearly within the scope of the Hobbs Act does not grant candidates “immunity” in the event they are not elected.

Ferry Plaza Urban Renewal, L.P. v. City of Newark

21 N.J. Tax 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 14, 2003

Plaintiff qualified as an urban renewal entity, and received approval from defendant for its project. See N.J.S.A. 40A:20-3(g); 40A:20-5; 40A:20-8. … The SILOT reimbursements paid by tenants to the taxpayer qualify as revenue.

Boardwalk Reg. Corp. v. Casino Control Comm.

352 N.J. Super. 285 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2002

The Commission also found that DiBartolomeo was no longer required to qualify in connection with the renewal of Caesars' license, provided he "be found qualified before he *163 resumes or assumes the duties or exercises the … ERISA defines the term "employee welfare benefit plan" as: [a] program which [is] established ... by an employer ..., to the extent that such plan ... was established ... for the purpose of providing ... through the purchase

Wellington v. Estate of Wellington

359 N.J. Super. 484 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2003

Plaintiff argues: "A property settlement is clearly distinguishable from support and maintenance." … The paragraph *675 clearly states that in settlement of that right, she will receive $50,000.

WILLIAMS v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2019

immunity.1 (D.E. … Because Defendants failed to address this claim in their Motion, both substantively and in their qualified immunity discussion, the Court will not dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety, as requested.