Case law

L.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation

8 N.J. Tax 338 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jul 21, 1986

The circumstances of plaintiffs case clearly fail to meet this test. … Since plaintiff has met the two requisites of “transfer” and “consideration” which qualify the transfer of title to the automobile as a “retail sale,” and since plaintiff has not overcome the presumption of validity that

MIKANDA v. CALVARY-SPV-I-LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 2024

§1915(e)(2)(B), and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or otherwise seeks relief from an immune defendant. … To establish jurisdiction, a pleading must either present a federal claim or trigger the court’s diversity jurisdiction, See Gibson v. Tip Towing & Recovery LLC, No. 23-2919, 2024 WL 658977 at *1 (3d Cir.

CREAMER v. LYNCH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 2, 2022

immunity, and finally because Plaintiffs claims are barred by Heck v. … an deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's needs or not under constitutional compulsion to provide medical assistance, this Court need not address Defendants’ arguments that they are entitled to qualified immunity or

In Re Mewborn

367 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2006

The court further noted that the primary purpose of such payments is to provide income security to qualifying recipients. Id. … The court also determined that the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits establishes a “societal contract” of sorts between the state and the recipient. Id. at 455 .

Application of Waterfront Comm. of NY Harbor

39 N.J. Super. 33 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1956

The Compact clearly grants the Commission the power to issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses in connection with an investigation or a license hearing. ( Article IV, sec. 8; Article XI, par. 5 ( N.J.S.A. 32 … There is no constitutional right to immunity from the service of process. Lamb v. Schmitt, 285 U.S. 222 , 52 S.Ct. 317 , 76 L.Ed. 720 (1931); cf. Rutledge v. Krauss, 73 N.J.L. 397 ( Sup. Ct. 1906).

C.A. v. Bentolila

428 N.J. Super. 115 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 2012

The purpose of this report, DVl, was to record an event that qualified for further investigation. According to the Hospital’s counsel, the Apgar Score was apparently the qualified event that prompted DVl. … Furthermore, the record does not clearly establish that the round-table meeting that generated DV2 was exclusively conducted pursuant to the procedures under the PSA. The record reflects that Mutter wore two hats.

Greenan v. Braca

18 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 18, 1955

“It needs no argument to establish that, if an unqualified voter casts his ballot, it has the effect to impair the value of the vote of a duly qualified voter.” In re Freeholders of Hudson County, 105 N. J. … In light of the high significance attached to the function, it is regrettable that the duties of the officials charged with its performance are not more clearly spelled out in the statutes.

State v. Sturdivant

31 N.J. 165 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 23, 1959

We need not discuss the precise reach of that provision since the facts before us are clearly beyond it; there is no suggestion that any of the talesmen sought to be summoned. … In fact, the under-sheriff’s decision to gather jurors from eight large business establishments in the *177 City of Newark was reasonably calculated to reflect the population, urban and suburban.

Matter of Nelson

66 B.R. 231 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 1986

The assent must, however, be clearly established and will not be inferred from doubtful or equivocal acts or language.’ 541 F.Supp. at 856 (quoting 5 S. Williston, Law of Contracts § 678, at 238 to 240 (3d ed. 1961)). … There was not a “clearly established” assent on the part of Central Mortgage to accept the debtor as the transferee of the property or as a mortgagor.

Gleitman v. Cosgrove

49 N.J. 22 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 1967

But there is no policy favoring the breach of duty here or its immunization. Dor is there any dispute that the Gleitmans could have terminated the pregnancy lawfully outside Dew Jersey, at least in some foreign country. … Should the Legislature differ with any of this, it is of course at liberty to adopt an enactment clearly expressing its wishes and directions.

Matturri v. Board of Trustees of the Judicial Retirement System

173 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2002

In his view, the term “current” clearly and unambiguously conveys a legislative directive to update (increase) survivors’ benefits as judicial salaries change. … If we mention the current United States President, without qualifying “current,” we are referring to George W. Bush.

KENNEDY v. THE NEW JERSEY COURT SYSTEM

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2023

Most entities must affirmatively outline their compatibility with the Fitchnik factors, however it is well-established that “state courts, its employees, and the judges are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment … This Circuit requires that the result of the state court action be “effectively final” before the institution of the federal suit to qualify for the application of the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.

Nj Farm Bureau v. East Amwell

380 N.J. Super. 325 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 22, 2005

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UPHOLDING ORDINANCE 99-06 SINCE THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED TO SUPPRESS FARMLAND VALUES. IV. … Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 , 300 A. 2d 142 (1973), or are clearly without merit, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add these brief supplemental comments regarding some of plaintiffs' points.

In Re Manfred

153 B.R. 430 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1993

Furthermore, in Rev.Rul. 82-1 the estate was created for the benefit of the decedent who qualified for the election prior to his passing away. … Thus, once the Trustee sold the residence, the sale was not only for the benefit of the Mehrs who qualify for the § 121 election, but also for the benefit of the creditors who do not qualify for a § 121 election.

Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services

204 N.J. 320 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 10, 2010

Upon the discrete act of discharge, the plaintiff in Roa “clearly knew, or should have known, that he had been the subject of retaliation by defendants, and should have filed his complaint within two years thereof,” despite … However, the discrimination claim cannot be similarly viewed, and is subject to evaluation by established “discovery rule” principles.

Romano v. Kimmelman

190 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 27, 1983

We conclude that the complaint does not establish a right to relief under § 1983, there is an adequate remedy at law for plaintiffs and others similarly situated and the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not applicable to … plaintiffs were not parties to the Lopat case, had no privity relationship with the Lopat defendants, and more importantly, present no compelling basis for applying the evidentiary ruling of Lopat to their cases which are clearly

New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. State

382 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 2005

The criteria for designating underserved areas are established in N.J.S.A. 18A:71C-35. The agreement is clearly delineated and circumscribed by legislation. … Whether an expert is qualified can determine the outcome of a case. If, on the day of trial, a proffered expert is not qualified in a case requiring expert testimony, it would be outcome determinative.

Patrick Dawson v. Philip Murphy

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2024

The court found a substantive due process claim under the NJCRA required plaintiffs to establish both state action and an identified "right [,] privilege[,] or immunity secured" by the constitution which was violated in … "First, the asserted fundamental liberty interest must be clearly identified.

Asplund v. Marjohn Corp.

66 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1961

To resolve the uncertainty, Graham dispatched another letter, dated July 31, 1959, advising Asplund that "another" qualifying commitment had been obtained. … We therefore must consider whether the proposed mortgagee offered by defendant qualified as a "lending institution," in the sense indicated, at the time under consideration.

Lynch v. Scheininger

162 N.J. 209 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2000

Negligent conduct is not “immunized by the concept of ‘avoidable consequences.’ … Negligence is clearly relative in reference to the knowledge of the risk of injury to be apprehended.