Case law

C.A.M. v. R.A.W.

237 N.J. Super. 532 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1990

We recognize that in all three of these out-of-state cases the issue arose by way of a father’s counterclaim to a suit seeking to establish paternity and support for the child, whereas, in this case, it is the mother who … Those principles are clearly applicable in this case.

Nolan v. Lee Ho

120 N.J. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 1990

The Appellate Division held that because the discovery rules clearly had been circumvented, the trial court had been correct in vacating the settlement agreements. … Because defendants are not seeking damages, they need establish only equitable fraud, not legal fraud.

Reed v. Attorney General

195 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 7, 1984

We are wholly satisfied that these issues are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(E). Affirmed. … school other than a public school regardless of whether such transportation is along established public school routes.

Molino v. BF Goodrich Co.

261 N.J. Super. 85 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1992

We held that this decision constituted an abuse of discretion, as the expert was clearly qualified as an expert about the materials used in TEC 21F. … Forney's extensive background in tire analysis qualified him to testify regarding the need for an adequate warning.

Mortimer v. Board of Review

99 N.J. 393 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1985

Section 19(u), however, did not accord the same *396 exclusivity to the monetary alternative test, since employees qualifying under that standard could not calculate the average weekly wage on the basis of the most recent … However, what the amendment clearly conveys is a disavowal by the Legislature of the method of calculation approved in Schatz with respect to claimants who worked more than 20 base weeks in the base year.

Brady v. New Jersey Redistricting Commission

131 N.J. 594 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 7, 1992

Because the unconstitutional portion of the legislation is clearly severable, we proceed to address the substantive challenges in both appeals. … Of course, the Act qualifies that duty somewhat by adding the sensible condition “to the fullest extent reasonable and when not in conflict with [the Act’s other requirements].” N.J.S.A. 19:46-10(d).

D.J.L. v. Armour Pharmaceutical Co.

307 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1997

system, rendering the immune system unable to protect the body from opportunistic infections. … Every citizen has an interest in seeing those public funds recovered if culpability is ultimately established for transmitting the HIV infection.

KHAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 2026

An actionable claim must satisfy six elements to “simultaneously trigger the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, create subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and establish the Government’s tort … However, Plaintiff cannot amend in his opposition brief the clearly identified federal sources of duty alleged in the Complaint. See Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v.

TP. OF SPRINGFIELD v. Union Cty. Park Comm.

163 N.J. Super. 332 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 1978

property shall become tax exempt as of the date of acquisition. [ L. 1971, c. 370, § 2] Defendant Commission contends that the above statutes are not applicable, that it is not liable for taxes under the same and that it is immune … Thus, it is clear that such conflicts in powers, functions and internal operations clearly demonstrate that it was not the intention of the Legislature to include the Union County Park Commission within the definition of

DAMIEN ROSE BRUNO VS. JEFFERSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC MADELYN CALDERON VS. JEFFERSON STREET ASSOCIATES, LLC (L-3060-14 AND L-3061-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 2020

The TCA re-established sovereign immunity after common law immunity had been abrogated by the Supreme Court in Willis v. Department of Conservation & Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534, 536-41 (1970). … Defendants also were immune from liability because the alleged failure-to-arrest was "clearly discretionary" and not a ministerial act.

In Re Commitment of DS

359 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2002

In re Commitment of W.K., 159 N.J. 1,2 , 731 A.2d 482 (1999); citing Krol, supra, as establishing the standard for such commitments. … [The factual findings are omitted from the published edition of the opinion as not qualifying for publication under R. 1:36-2(d)].

Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.

168 F.R.D. 485 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 1996

As the Third Circuit has stated, ‘“[g]ood cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must be shown with specificity.’” Id. … A Reporter has a “Qualified” Privilege to Protect His/Her News Gathering Material.

WILLIAM J. BRENNAN VS. COUNTY OF BERGEN (L-7403-16, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 2021

"To qualify as expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, the actor must have '[a]n intent to convey a particularized message . . . and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood [must be] great that the … The record does not clearly establish the length of the delay. On the video, it appears that plaintiff waited approximately seven minutes while Giblin checked to see if the building was a polling place.

Licenziato v. United States

889 F. Supp. 162 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1995

The doctrine of Sovereign Immunity bars suit against the United States without its consent. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607 (1980). … The result of requiring a jury trial where the extent of the injury is clearly a minor one would perpetuate a system of unnecessary litigation ...

GRAF v. Folarno

99 N.J. Super. 173 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1968

The purpose of the examination was to establish that the doctor's interests were deeply involved in time-consuming activities in other fields, which affected his credibility in his assertions concerning the time and thought … Appellate courts are denied the privilege of disturbing the order of the trial court unless it clearly and unequivocally appears that there was effected thereby a manifest denial of justice under the law. Kulbacki v.

Wilzig v. Sisselman

209 N.J. Super. 25 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 1986

The general rule with respect to apparent authority in this State is clearly stated in Mesce v. Automobile Association of New Jersey, 8 N.J. … When established, the authority, implied or apparent, can neither be qualified by the secret instructions of the principal nor enlarged by the unauthorized misrepresentations of the agent.

Chambers v. Hunt

22 N.J.L. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 1849

The affirm *555 ative being on the plaintiff, upon the principle already referred to, it followed that he must prove property in himself, absolute or qualified, to the entire chattels, or what, in reference to this plea, … Whether founded on accurate reasoning or otherwise, it is clearly established for law, that the defendant shall have a return, because, as is the reason given, he had the possession, which was illegally taken from him by

M. v. S.

169 N.J. Super. 209 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1979

Div. 1975), held that the county welfare board was entitled to budgetary immunity to such expenses in the absence of specific appropriation for such tests. … Clearly there is a nexus between the parties and the county welfare board.

Luchejko v. City of Hoboken

207 N.J. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 2011

There is no call to upset the well-established and longstanding difference in the duties imposed on residential versus commercial property owners. … With those principles clearly understood, the panel properly concluded that because the property in issue was used solely for religious purposes it was not “commercial” under Stewart.

Priest v. Poleshuck

29 N.J. Super. 401 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1954

In rebuttal Miss Jones testified that the custom at the Cole establishment was not to enter customers' payments on the date the money was received, but rather when it was deposited. … The issues were clearly within its province and there was ample evidence to support its verdict. The judgment will be affirmed. EWART, J.A.D. (dissenting).