Case law

Franek v. Tomahawk Lake Resort

333 N.J. Super. 206 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 20, 2000

On that basis the judge concluded that plaintiff could not, in this case, "clearly establish[ ]" HAL violations, and determined that "plaintiff is barred from asserting HAL violations as evidence of a LAD claim." … of the class for whose benefit the standard was established").

Conrad v. Robbi

341 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2001

None of the parties have cited Kristiansen, although the Supreme Court in that case clearly endorsed the holding in Thompson . … The Board was clearly on notice that Conrad had a permanent injury with progressive symptoms.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Estate of CCG 1355, Inc. v. CRST, Inc. (In Re CCG 1355, Inc.)

276 B.R. 377 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2002

His testimony also clearly established that the $6050 difference between the credit given by the defendant in its Ex. … Analysis of § 547(c)(2)(C) is not necessary, given CRST’s failure to establish its (B) course of dealing requirement.

In re Y.L.

437 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 3, 2014

The Board discovered that Y.L. had been arrested for prostitution, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1, in a massage therapy establishment in 2004. The charge was later dismissed. … Y.L. is otherwise qualified for a license. 1 *412 Our scope of review of an administrative agency action is limited and highly deferential.

Murray v. Newark Housing Authority

311 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 1998

And clearly, other provisional boiler operators that were younger than plaintiff 8 were retained after the NHA’s reduction in force, where *175 as plaintiff was not. 9 Having established a prima facie case of discrimination … To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.

Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.

225 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1988

That a biochemist is not a qualified expert pursuant to Evid.R. 56 to testify generally as to human cancer causation. *489 2.) … Testimony in the Rule 8 hearing clearly demonstrates the wide ranging scientific study of cancer.

Ak v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Serv.

350 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 2002

Thus, as of January 1998, this couple was permitted to retain total resources not in excess of $82,760 in order to qualify for Medicaid benefits. … Clearly, the purpose of taking a "snapshot" of the couple's resources at the time of institutionalization is to establish the spousal share so that the couple's resources are not continually halved with each application or

Riley v. Keenan

406 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 2009

She was unable to return to her sales job and qualified for Social Security disability (SSI) commencing summer 2003. … By the time Wells left the establishment at 4:30 p.m., he saw Keenan drink at least two beers.

City of Philadelphia v. Smith

169 N.J. Super. 156 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1979

In the circumstances here disclosed no state can be said to have a legitimate policy against payment of its neighbor's taxes, the obligation of which has been judicially established by courts to whose judgments in practically … portion of the judgment for these civil penalties from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, we apply "[t]he basic, controlling principle * * * that the forum must accord the foreign judgment the same degree of credit, status and immunity

Freeth v. Rule

117 N.J. Eq. 490 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 29, 1935

Allen, which clearly seeks to avert, rather than meet, the charges leveled against him. … The petitioner has established her right to the temporary relief which she seeks. There will be an order accordingly. *Page 496

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Carriere

170 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1979

The Commissioner of Insurance is hereby authorized and empowered to establish, by rule or regulations, the amounts and terms of income continuation insurance to be provided pursuant to this section. … As such, she falls clearly within the category of "named insured" under the regulation.

Hall v. AT & T MOBILITY LLC

608 F. Supp. 2d 592 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2009

And finally, the complaint in the matter clearly alleged the deliberate scheme by a party with superior bargaining power to cheat consumers out of small sums of money. Id. … These allegations clearly suffice to meet the third prong of Discover Bank . 2.

Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authurity v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

194 N.J. Super. 52 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1984

Moreover, we find that all arguments raised with respect to this issue are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(1)(E). 33 U.S. … C. 1282(a)(1) expressly authorizes the states to reduce the federally funded percentage of construction costs below the 75% maximum therein established.

State v. Coulter

326 N.J. Super. 584 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 1999

Had the subject aggravating factor not been used and the mitigating factor been applied, the sum of the points on the Worksheet would have been zero, thereby qualifying defendant for the presumptive term. … Our review of the record before us, however, fails to establish the presence of plain error in this case.

Campbell Soup Co. v. BD. OF REVIEW, DIV. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

13 N.J. 431 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 2, 1953

The union did not protest his pensioning off under the duly established grievance machinery. The claimant sought other employment without success.” … of the citizens of this state requires the enactment of this measure, under the police powers of the state, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed after qualifying

Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield v. State

425 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2012

To qualify as an HSC, a corporation must be “organized, without capital stock and not for profit, for the purpose of (1) establishing, maintaining and operating a nonprofit health service plan and (2) supplying services in … However, it is undisputed that plaintiff was the only HSC in the state and the only such carrier to qualify for the l/8th Rule.

Ott v. WEST NEW YORK TP.

92 N.J. Super. 184 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 1966

Where, as here, the governing body has been qualified to act as the local public agency, it is clothed with all the authority conferred upon any other local public agency. … The discretion which is immune from review is an honest and not a purely arbitrary one.

DAMARR-FARUQ v. CITY OF PLEASANTVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2025

Alternatively, the State Defendants assert that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. … “But a decision on qualified immunity would be premature because there are unresolved disputes of historical fact relevant to the immunity analysis.” Williams v. Ponik, 822 F.

United States v. Souders

27 F. Cas. 1267 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 1871

must have a strict construction; for the law is tender as to the rights of individuals, and courts wisely shrink from the exercise of the power of punishment, except upon conviction in those cases where the legislature has clearly … Where the words used do not clearly disclose this intention, it is proper to consider what was said or done by the law-making power, while the'subject matter was under discussion, in order to arrive at their meaning.

THOMPSON-EL v. TOWNSHIP OF GREEN BROOK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 2024

Supp. 3d at 537. 15 Defendants raise the defense of qualified immunity. (See ECF No. 79-2 at 13-14.) … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.” Castro, 521 F. Supp. 3d at 524 n.16. B.