Case law

Pinewood Estates of Michigan v. Barnegat Township Rent Leveling Board

261 N.J. Super. 357 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1992

qualify for hardship relief. … exceeded his gross annual income by a certain percentage for the last calendar year in order to qualify for an increase.

Menes v. Chubb & Son

101 F. Supp. 3d 427 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2015

Under this standard, the decision of the administrator “will be overturned only if it is ‘clearly not supported by the evidence in the record or the administrator has failed to comply with the procedures required by the plan … However, “an award of SSD benefits does not in itself establish that an administrator’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Alpine Country Club v. Borough of Demarest

354 N.J. Super. 387 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 2002

The judge ruled, So if you—if you want to just generally establish who Mr. Mavroudis is that Mr. … As the record clearly indicates, Mavroudis' conversations with municipalities' appraiser were in an entirely different context: BY MR. LANGAN [municipalities' counsel]: Q: Mr. Mavroudis did Mr.

Lincoln v. Momentum Systems Ltd.

86 F. Supp. 2d 421 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 1, 2000

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions … But, “stray” remarks or an isolated comment are insufficient to establish discrimination. See Waggoner v.

LM v. State, Div. of Med. Assist. & Health Serv.

140 N.J. 480 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 7, 1995

On that same date, the court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that reflected the provisions of the agreement. … Marx, 265 N.J.Super. 418, 425 , 627 A.2d 691 (Ch.Div.1993) (“Under New Jersey law, pensions are clearly subject to equitable distribution.”); Ryan v.

Gorham v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

762 F. Supp. 1138 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 1991

This court finds that plaintiff has failed to establish the second part of her prima facie case, i.e., that she was qualified for the position that she held. … The record clearly discloses that the plaintiff had not performed her job in 1988 to AT & T’s satisfaction.

Air Master Sales Co. v. Northbridge Park Co-Op, Inc.

748 F. Supp. 1110 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 19, 1990

In construing the terms of the qualified acceptance by Monaco on behalf of Air Master, it is clear the Air Master acceptance of the Northbridge offer was conditional and never became effective. … Because of the qualified confirmation of Air Master, there is no contract to construe or enforce in this case. E.

State v. Karpowitz

98 N.J.L. 546 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1923

. *549 To justify a court in setting aside in a civil case a verdict of a jury on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence, it must so clearly appear as to give rise to the inference that it is the result … These cases establish that it is the province of a jury to pass upon -the questions of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony.

Smith v. Suprema Specialties, Inc.

206 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 2002

Further, to sustain a group of proposed lead plaintiffs, courts have established protocols to insure that the group will be effective. … Clearly, these are not institutions.

State v. Kemp

195 N.J. 136 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 2008

and that t]he contents of the statement are clearly relevant to this case on several issues. … Defense counsel made his point clearly: “Judge, just to clarify.

Ball v. Ward

73 N.J. Eq. 440 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 6, 1907

The answer also fails to set up clearly or expressly whether the conveyance was by way of payment or security. … Ward afterwards died, and Mrs, Ball qualified as executrix in her place, and on March 7th, 1907, a petition was filed for the revival of the suit against the devisees and trustees of Ward, on which ex parte order was made

State v. Mierzwa

420 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2011

[a]nd I'm going to see whether you qualify financially. If you do, I'll assign a public defender to represent you. … Court Rules, comment 4 on R. 1:36-3 (2011) ("Clearly, when an appellate court has decided an issue, its decision, even if not final in terms of the controversy, establishes the law of the case.").

Varma v. Bloustein

721 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 11, 1988

Both parties accept the well-established principle of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. … Judgment in these matters can be made only be qualified colleagues....

Rommer v. United States

268 F. Supp. 740 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 14, 1966

Defendant, on the other hand, in support of the action taken by the Commissioner, contends that while there may have been a literal compliance with the requirements of Section 337, the transactions involved, while unorthodox, establish … To qualify under Section 354, the transferee corporation must acquire “substantially all of the assets” of the transferor corporation, and any stock, securities or other property received by the transferor corporation must

LOVE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 2026

App’x 639, 642 (3d Cir. 2009) (vacating order granting motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the sparse complaint “failed to disclose whether the defendants’ actions did not violate a clearly established … constitutional right” and therefore “dismissal on qualified immunity grounds was premature.”

Sarner v. Union Tp.

55 N.J. Super. 523 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 1959

The uniformity that is required is to prevent the granting to any person, or class of persons, the privileges or immunities which upon the same terms do not belong to all persons. 2 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3 d … The insertion by the Senate of section 5 into the Assembly bill, followed by the insertion of section 6, clearly indicates that the bill was not acceptable to the Senate as drawn.

Brown v. Wildwood Volunteer Fire Co. No. 1

228 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1988

The repealed sections related to incorporation of volunteer fire companies and to the rights, powers, privileges, benefits, advantages and immunities of volunteer fire companies. … The statutory provisions clearly grant a volunteer fire company authority to engage in activities such as those in the present case.

In re N.J.A.C.

450 N.J. Super. 152 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2017

As we explained in Silver , “[b]y its plain terms,” the 2003 regulation “prescribefd] a two-prong standard to establish misconduct.” Id. at 53 , 61 A.3d 958 . … It is well-established that, when reviewing an agency’s adoption of a regulation on appeal, the scope of review is “both narrow and deferential.”

Morrone v. Thuring

334 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 5, 2000

Clearly, that language is broad enough to encompass both debts and judgments. … Section 514(b)(2)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (b)(2)(A), otherwise known as the "saving clause" or "savings clause" qualifies the statute's broad preemption.

Forbes v. Board of Trustees

312 N.J. Super. 519 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 1998

Consequently, an area in which such properties predominated and which established its general character was eligible for the blight declaration. … That aim is the redevelopment of areas that qualify as blighted so as to restore or to apply them to uses which will serve the community benefit.