Case law

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL CLARITY (13-10-0621, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 2019

It is in this context that the Court refined what facts a sentencing court may consider beyond those facts established by a jury when contemplating the imposition of an extended term. See State v. … Our existing jurisprudence does not clearly answer many of these questions we have briefly identified.5 And they will not be answered now, because we find nothing in either the guidelines provided by our Criminal Code

Baxter v. AT & T COMMUNICATIONS

712 F. Supp. 1166 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1989

A.T. & T.’s motion is based on its contention that because the record, including plaintiffs deposition testimony itself, clearly establishes that plaintiff was unqualified and unable to perform as a computer programmer, plaintiff … In order to create an inference of discrimination, plaintiff must show that he was qualified to be a computer programmer and that he was performing his duties adequately, but that he was discharged in spite of this.

State v. Zola

112 N.J. 384 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 7, 1988

We believe that the court clearly intended to permit each of the views of manslaughter to be considered by the jury. … Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 110-11 (1982), discusses the rule established in Brady v.

In Re Veterans' Air Express Co.

76 F. Supp. 684 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 1948

The test of whether navigable waters are subject to Congressional control is clearly set forth in most of the cases cited. … And the reasons which are *690 compulsive for establishing Congressional control of water navigation as a constitutionally established prerogative are, if anything, more cogent with regard to navigation of the air.

Capital Health System, Inc. v. New Jersey

445 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2016

In setting up a tiered benefit network, the carrier "may establish criteria and standards for providers of health care services with which it desires to contract, and may establish its own contracting … Based on this commitment, the Department concluded "that the OMNIA Network met the time and distance requirements of N.J.A.C. 11:24A-4.10 and qualified for statewide approval."

Aftab v. New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

386 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 2006

In addition to plaintiffs’ ANLIR policies not being policies to which the PLIGA Act applies, ANLIR cannot qualify as an “insolvent insurer.” … Although reciprocals can qualify as licensed insurers admitted or authorized to transact the business of insurance in New Jersey, it does not follow that all reciprocals do so qualify.

Lieberman v. Saley

94 N.J. Super. 156 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1967

The error must be clearly prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party seeking a review. Stanley Co. of America v. Hercules Powder Co., 16 N.J. 295, 307-308 (1954). … It is true that the rule is qualified to the extent that the remainder of the statement must pertain to those matters which are the subject of inquiry *164 or investigation. Ibid.

Samaroo v. Samaroo

743 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 1990

The first of these two subsections outlines the information which a domestic relations order must contain: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— ( … Though reluctant to establish an all-encompassing rule for “pendent party” jurisdiction, the Court in Aldinger held that to assert such jurisdiction, “a federal court must satisfy itself not only that Art.

Gourmet Dining, LLC v. Union Township (083146)(Tax Court & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2020

Under the State Constitution, all real property within New Jersey is subject to taxation unless it qualifies for a statutory exemption. … Because N.J.S.A. 54:4-1.10 so clearly intends to cover user arrangements such as these, the Court relies on the Tax Court’s analysis of that statute’s applicability here.

B. v. O.

50 N.J. 93 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1967

However, Pennsylvania law clearly does not deny a married woman standing to prosecute an action for support for illegitimate children born or conceived during wedlock. E. g. Commonwealth v. Ludlow, 206 Pa. … We note that under this interpretation the child, whose welfare must be the uppermost consideration, may be wholly deprived of support: the New Jersey putative father is immune from the mother’s suit, *100 but the Florida

State v. Sharkey

204 N.J. Super. 192 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 11, 1985

The trial court refused to admit this exhibit on the ground that defendant had not laid a proper foundation qualifying the evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule. … A person to whom a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness, Parker v.

West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse Railroad

52 N.J. Eq. 452 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1894

Now State street, in the township of Stockton, is clearly such a public road or highway. … The evidence in this case clearly shows that the Camden company is within this criterion.

Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram

608 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 2009

The December 29 Order Was Not Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law Plaintiffs argue that Judge Salas’s ruling in the December 29 Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be reversed. … The Court in Bell Atlantic abrogated the rule established in Conley v.

Maas Waldstein Co. v. Walker

100 N.J. Eq. 224 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Nov 27, 1926

I think it has been clearly established by the evidence that the formulae or processes of the complainant company used in connection with its manufacture of laquers, enamels, c., were secret formulae or processes. … We approve the principle thus established." In that case there was an express contract.

Gunter v. Fischer Scientific American

193 N.J. Super. 688 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1984

The Report notes that Evid.R. 63(13) does not require, as did N.J.S.A. 2A:82-35, that the "custodian or other qualified witness" must testify as to the identity and mode of preparation of the business record. … However, routine observations, findings and complaints clearly are admissible. Petitioner relied on Evid.R. 63(8) and Evid.R. 63(9) for admission of Dr. Glass's reports to respondent's carrier.

Nolan v. Otis Elevator Co.

102 N.J. 30 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 26, 1986

Eligibility to participate in the HSSRP was limited to managerial employees who, by virtue of their service, already qualified for early retirement under Otis’ basic pension plan. … In the preemptive section of 514(a) Congress used the phrase “relate to” in its broad sense; hence the pregnancy-benefit provisions clearly related to the administration of an ERISA plan.

Campbell v. New Jersey Racing Commission

169 N.J. 579 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 11, 2001

(To establish certified standards, a company must comply with rules established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.) Dr. … In sum, two qualified experts and documentary evidence supported the Commission’s laboratory procedures.

YAEGER v. SONG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2024

She also argues that plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against her and that she has qualified immunity for the claim “because there is no clearly established right to dental care to address subjective … Song’s qualified immunity argument.

Chester Borough v. World Challenge, Inc.

14 N.J. Tax 20 · New Jersey Tax Court · Apr 6, 1994

The Supreme Court has stated that the party claiming an exemption has the burden of establishing that it clearly qualifies for exemption and, when construing the statute which gives rise to the exemption: all doubts are resolved … Though World Challenge was authorized to conduct religious activities in New Jersey on October 1, 1991, it does not maintain an established church in the State.

Cosmas v. American Express Centurion Bank

757 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 2010

Equifax, Inc., 619 F.2d 700, 703-05 (8th Cir.1980) (describing section 1681h(e) in terms of “qualified immunity”); Lawrence v. Trans Union, LLC, 296 F.Supp.2d 582, 590 (E.D.Pa.2003) (same). … For one, a plain reading of the text of section 1681h(e) clearly states that it is applicable only when a plaintiffs claim relates to information “disclosed pursuant to sections 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m ... or based on information