Case law

State v. Morris

242 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1990

In Tate , the Court rejected defendant's claim that he needed marijuana to treat his quadriplegia and that he was immune from prosecution under the necessity doctrine. … The aggravating factors clearly justified the imposition of the parole ineligibility term.

James v. Torres

354 N.J. Super. 586 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 2002

We are thus not obliged to consider whether N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8 in its amended state immunized a plaintiff from summary judgment practice entirely by inserting a requirement that a plaintiff submit a certification executed under … We are satisfied from our review of the policy behind the statute and the legislative findings adopted at its enactment that the Legislature clearly intended to require that an injury be both permanent and serious to permit

Arons v. New Jersey Network

342 N.J. Super. 168 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 19, 2001

Plaintiff was of the view that her candidacy was upsetting to individuals in the education “establishment” and to attorneys. … In addition, the Legislature has clearly indicated that it views the issue as one which cannot be handled by mathematical comparisons of broadcast time allocations.

Windmere, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.

208 N.J. Super. 697 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 1986

If, however, the uniqueness of the human voice were established, it would not necessarily follow that the voiceprint technique is capable of detecting that uniqueness. … Clearly, the statements made by Bodell were within the hearsay exception of Evid.R. 63(9)(a), as a person "responsible for the actual maintenance work at the restaurant."

GRAY v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 3, 2024

To establish a prima facie claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, a plaintiff must show that he: 1) was a member of a protected class, 2) applied for credit from defendant, 3) was qualified for the credit, and 4 … Plaintiff does not allege any facts to suggest that that he was a member of a protected class or that he was qualified for the line of credit requested.

United States v. Ferranti

59 F. Supp. 1003 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 22, 1944

The maximum price regulation alleged to have been violated does not establish in specific terms maximum prices for poultry; it only prescribes a formula by which such prices may be calculated, once the facts relied on for … And Section 202(g) provides: “No person shall be excused from complying with any requirements under this section because of his privilege against self incrimination, but the immunity provisions of the Compulsory Testimony

Zimmerman v. Mun. Clerk of Tp. of Berkeley

201 N.J. Super. 363 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1985

. : My construction of this series of statutes clearly brings me to the conclusion that you cannot have a legal petition for the removal of more than one individual — period. … This contravenes the well established rule of statutory construction that a legislative provision should not be read in isolation or in a way which sacrifices what appears to be the scheme of the statute as a whole.

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)

204 B.R. 122 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 10, 1997

Paulsen, 886 F.2d 602, 606 (3d Cir.1989) (“That a motor vehicle surcharge constitutes a debt ... has been clearly established.”); Christensen v. … See In re Lugo, 94 B.R. 335, 342 (D.N.J.1989) (declining to restrict discharge exception where neither statutory language nor legislative history clearly expressed such intent).

GREENMAN v. CITY OF HACKENSACK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 12, 2020

Qualified immunity was permitted because the right was not sufficiently established in the case law. See generally Saucier v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (qualified immunity applies unless plaintiff demonstrates violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the misconduct).

State v. Hummer

81 N.J.L. 430 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1906

The phrase “admission or rejection of testimony” clearly imports judicial action; no one but the trial court can reject testimony, hence as “rejection of testimony” must imply action by the court the same sort of meaning … “The admission of rejection of testimony” thus importing judicial action *433 a consistent conslruction must be given to the qualifying words "whether objection was ¡nade thereto or not.”

State v. Sparano

249 N.J. Super. 411 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1991

POINT IV THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN QUALIFYING AND PERMITTING INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY HIGHAM TO TESTIFY. POINT V THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL. … We cannot conclude that the brother's testimony was so prejudicial that it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. *422 Nor did it constitute inadmissible expert testimony.

State v. Walker

37 N.J. 208 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1962

It was established that the defendant and Mary Johnson had lived together in Philadelphia prior to the shooting. … J. 550, at 565 (1955), and a verdict will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it is clearly the result of mistake, passion, prejudice or partiality. State v. Forcella, 3 5 N.

Grubb v. Wyckoff

52 N.J. 599 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 12, 1968

The recall petition must be signed by qualified voters equal in number to 35% of the registered voters of the municipality, and the petition must set forth a statement of the cause upon which the removal is sought. N. … A. 40:69A — 177, and thus his recall establishes that a majority believe he ought not to continue in his office. But it must be noted that a majority vote does not establish unfitness for office.

State v. Gilmore

103 N.J. 508 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 16, 1986

This explanation hence does not qualify as a trial-related reason that would rebut the showing of presumed group bias. … For, whatever the criteria for deciding such questions, Blacks clearly constitute a cognizable group. Cf. McCray v.

State v. Inhabitants of Trenton

50 N.J.L. 331 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1888

or which may be established, for the police force or police department of such city.” … It was not intended to confer the power, to establish the mode of appointing, for that would conflict with the mode clearly defined in section 17, while a reasonable discretion in declaring what the tenure of the office shall

Brodsky v. Red Raven Rubber Co.

111 N.J.L. 453 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 27, 1933

And the grounds of appeal are clearly insufficient also in not pointing out the particular error claimed to have been made. State Highway Commission v. Zyk, 105 N. J. L. 156 ; 144 Atl. Rep. 8 . … Assuming, without deciding, that it was incompetent as opinion evidence from a witness not qualified, no such objection was made and appellants cannot raise that point here.

Claremont Health Systems, Inc. v. Borough of Point Pleasant

16 N.J. Tax 604 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 26, 1997

Seller is not selling and Buyer is not purchasing: (I) the parcel of real property described in Exhibit 1.01A attached hereto and together with all easements, tenements, hereditaments, appurtenances, rights, privileges, immunities … Both plaintiff and defendant agree that, in order to qualify for exemption, plaintiff must “own” the building for which it claims exemption.

Pratico v. Rhodes

17 N.J. 328 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 1955

S. 2A :152-7 is applicable since clearly the moneys were seized by the police “in connection with any arrest for violation of or conspiracy to violate any gambling law of this state.” … It was and is to establish a rule of evidence, by a prima faaie presumption to be used in the trial of the claim of property created by the act.

Lakewood Tp. Mun. Util. v. S. Lakewood Water Co.

129 N.J. Super. 462 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1974

" appraiser, and Rosen was not qualified. … Since we have held that the Authority had the right to exercise the option, it is clearly liable to pay for the purchase of the water company's assets. We see no reason for withholding adjudication to that effect.

In re J.E.

432 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 2013

It also found as a fact that “the evidence fail[ed] to establish that defendant abused or neglected [the minor] while he lived with her in Guatemala.” Ibid. … The facts of this case are vastly different and clearly distinguishable from D.C.