Case law

Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc.

207 F. Supp. 3d 417 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 13, 2016

Typicality and Adequacy The Court must also determine whether Plaintiffs have established typicality and adequacy. … As the Supreme Court has recently stated, “Rule 23(b)(3), as an adventuresome innovation, is designed for situations in which class-action treatment is not as clearly called for.” Comcast v.

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Lambertson

59 N.J.L. 297 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1896

The claim is that upon the evidence given by Lambertson,. he was so clearly guilty of negligence contributing to his injury that the case should have been taken from the jury. … It was not contested that these witnesses were qualified to testify as experts.

Kulbacki v. Sobchinsky

38 N.J. 435 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 19, 1962

The trial judge then set out the heart of his reasoning in denying the motion: "In order to disturb the findings of the jury on the issue of liability it must clearly and convincingly be established that the verdict of the … Weiss, 20 N.J. 258, 262 , the court said: "The right to trial by jury secured by the Constitution does not immunize a jury verdict from nullification in any case where it clearly and convincingly appears that the verdict

Del Priore v. Edison Township

26 N.J. Tax 502 · New Jersey Superior Court · Mar 29, 2012

an evidentiary hearing was desirable in order to establish the Township’s reasons for its actions. … Clearly, if the Township continued to grant fully retroactive refunds, there would either be less money for other needs or it would be necessary to raise additional tax monies from non-exempt taxpayers.

DALAL v. KRAKORA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2021

It is well-established that “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office. … An appropriate Order follows. 4 In addition, Defendants attempt to raise qualified immunity for the first time in their reply brief, but the Court declines

Pbk v. Board of Educ.

343 N.J. Super. 419 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 2001

Further, as the Board noted in its exceptions, petitioner has not established, nor has he even claimed, that E.Y.' … Clearly it was directed at instances where the student is living with a parent or guardian claiming to be but not actually domiciled in the school district or, alternatively, where a child is placed with a person other than

SKELTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2020

to train NJDOC food preparers, the Court will dismiss these § 1983 claims without prejudice and need not address Defendants’ qualified immunity claims. … their serious medical needs, the Court will dismiss these § 1983 claims without prejudice and need not address Defendants’ qualified immunity claims.

F.K. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services & Ocean County Board of Social Services

374 N.J. Super. 126 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 2005

If a statute speaks clearly to the precise question at issue, the courts “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.” Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. … “The community spouse’s income is thus preserved for that spouse and does not affect the determination whether the institutionalized spouse qualifies for Medicaid.

In re the Suspension or Revocation of the License of Fichner

282 N.J. Super. 422 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1995

Three of the seven Board members were not statutorily qualified to hold office. … He contended on appeal that the statutory provisions establishing the method of selecting dental board members violated various provisions of the Pennsylvania state constitution. Ibid.

State v. La Fera

61 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1960

The unlawful purpose or the unlawful means to obtain a lawful purpose must be clearly stated. … Its work may not be set at naught except in accordance with our established practice. If the State *512 believes it has a weak case, it may move under R. R. 3:11-3 (a) to dismiss.

Williams v. Plainfield Bd. of Ed.

176 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 1980

Education, challenges the determination of the State Board of Education that the local board could properly transfer her from her tenured position to the position of elementary school principal (for which she was equally qualified … A tenure act provision clearly does not have the impact of a constitutional provision. Nor does its purpose in anywise equate with the purpose of the Compensation *164 Clause of the Constitution.

State v. Cox

128 N.J.L. 108 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 9, 1942

S. 1937, 2 :195-19, unless this taint clearly appears. … The surgeon who performed the autopsy described the latter fracture as the result of a “severe blow” *113 which “could have caused death * * * within a few minutes,” later qualified to “half a minute or a minute.”

KP, Ex Rel. SC v. Corsey

228 F. Supp. 2d 547 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2002

Section 1983 provides for the imposition of liability on any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 … The Plaintiffs have clearly made a proper claim against Corsey under § 1983. First, he acted under color of state law since the acts of harassment occurred in the course of his employment by the Board .of Education.

Freeman v. Chertoff

604 F. Supp. 2d 726 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2009

Freeman “must establish that she (1) has a ‘disabili *732 ty,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability.” … Accordingly, the Court concludes that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Freeman was disabled during the relevant time period. (2) Qualified individual A “qualified individual” is defined as one “who, with or without

Delcampo v. INS. UNDERWRITING ASS'N

266 N.J. Super. 687 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 15, 1993

Subject the procedures established in the plan of operation, producers shall have authority to issue binders to qualified applicants. … N.J.S.A. 17:30E-3(m) (emphasis added) defines the term "qualified applicant" as follows: m.

State v. Fortin

162 N.J. 517 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 23, 2000

Such a witness is qualified to discuss similarities between crimes without drawing conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant. … In cases concerning “signature” crimes, we stated: Evidence Rule 55 [the predecessor to N.J.R.E. 404(b) ] is most easily understood in situations of signature crimes, in which some distinct feature about the two crimes clearly

State v. DeMarco

107 N.J. 562 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1987

As a general rule, a trial court may not order admission over a prosecutor’s objection unless the defendant can establish clearly and convincingly that the objection constitutes a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.” … For a court to reverse a prosecutor’s decision, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor’s refusal to sanction admission into the program was based on a patent and gross abuse of discretion

O'Shea v. Township of West Milford

410 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2009

That definition was clearly less encompassing than OPRA's scope of applicability under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1. See O'Shea v. W. … These terms do not clearly encompass UFRs.

Magura v. Smith

131 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 1974

With jurisdiction established the court must first determine whether sufficient grounds exist upon which plaintiff can base a contest. … This clearly was not done in the third district.

Rivkin v. Dover Township Rent Leveling Board

277 N.J. Super. 559 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1994

On remand, the Board allowed an additional $25,-089.67 in qualifying capital improvements. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities