Case law

Falcone v. NJ Bell Tel. Co.

98 N.J. Super. 138 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 28, 1967

They endeavored to establish that plaintiff's trouble with his back was due to arthritis or, alternatively, that it resulted from a subsequent accident. While Dr. … An exception to this rule is recognized where the amount of the verdict clearly indicates a compromise, Kopec v.

Bayonne Textile Corp. v. American Federation of Silk Workers

116 N.J. Eq. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 1934

But in this he was clearly in error. … It was clearly not the purpose of congress, as a part of the emergency program, to put collective bargaining on this parochial basis.

State v. Mejia

141 N.J. 475 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 12, 1995

Clearly defendant’s death sentence is disproportionate to his crime. … Kleinman was clearly interested in establishing the nature and extent of the .abuse the defendant suffered and in explaining the impact of abuse on a child’s subsequent development.

McGovern v. Hoffman

73 N.J. Super. 200 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 19, 1962

At that hearing testimony was adduced through several witnesses, which established that on a number of specified dates between October 31, 1960 and November 17, 1960 Eugene J. … Clearly, the right to impose a condition on a license which would forestall the creation of ox the resumption of such a practice inhered in the statutory powers of the Director heretofore noted.

New Jersey Zinc Co. v. New Jersey Franklinite Co.

13 N.J. Eq. 322 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1861

It cannot he denied that there are circumstances connected with this transaction which excite distrust, and which, if clearly established, might, upon a proper case, have entitled the stockholders of the Zinc Company to relief … The fact of the existence of such distinct stratum is not established. The burthen of proof upon this point is upon the Zinc Company.

First Baptist Church v. Syms

51 N.J. Eq. 363 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1893

But this court’s-jurisdiction obtains in such a case as this only upon the establishment of fraud, and to establish that the proofs must show' not only collusion and the intentional concealment of evidences,but also that … the evidences withheld, if they had been presented- *375 to the law court, would clearly have been sufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s suit.

United States v. Kushner

349 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 12, 2005

As the Court shall discuss fully below, the public and media enjoy a qualified right of access to judicial records. … The second source, however, clearly involves substantive and subjective analysis on a case-by-case basis.

Borges v. Hamed

247 N.J. Super. 353 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1990

The Court held that this mixed use property qualified "as a residential or non-commercial property" for purposes of applying the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq. In Hambright v. Yglesias, 200 N.J. … The Ordinance does not explicitly establish civil liability on the part of a property owner for failure to maintain his abutting sidewalk.

State ex rel. J.A.

385 N.J. Super. 544 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2006

This was clearly the case here. … [used] to secure a volatile scene or establish the need for or provide medical care” are nontestimonial).

BANKS v. FBI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2019

Similarly, sovereign immunity applies to Defendant FBI. … Rawiley, the court found the FBI immune from suit, because the plaintiff failed to establish that Congress expressly waived sovereign immunity as to the Section 1983 claims she asserted against the FBI. 2016 WL 7477756

Story v. Palmer

46 N.J. Eq. 1 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1889

Herrick, the persons appointed have duly qualified as executrices and executor. … It may be stated as the established rule, that while this court will recognize equitable titles and deal with them in its proceedings, it will not decree a partition urged by one oestui que trust and resisted by another,

Estate of G.E. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services

271 N.J. Super. 229 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1994

The court subsequently entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to effectuate the direct pension payments to V.E. … This would encourage prospective Medicaid applicants with incomes exceeding the eligibility limit to incur substantial debts in order to establish eligibility, thereby circumventing the income limits established under the

State v. Rios

17 N.J. 572 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 7, 1955

He had himself performed more than 4,000 autopsies and was eminently qualified from the standpoint of background and experience to testify in the instant case. … Additionally, most of the testimony objected to within this class was clearly admissible as admissions against interest. *597 C.

Williamson v. Potter

80 N.J. Super. 517 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 8, 1963

But defendant further contends that aside from the constitutional feature, decedent was not a "resident" of this State so as to qualify for the benefits under the Unsatisfied Judgment statute. … There was a degree of permanence that clearly brings him within the purview of being a resident of this State, within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 39:6-62, at the time of the accident.

Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning Bd.

234 N.J. 403 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 2018

Nevertheless, standing requires that, in addition to establishing its "right to use, acquire, or enjoy property," a party **417 must establish that that right "is or may be affected." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4. *605 B. … Indeed, the MLUL clearly and unambiguously provides that standing may be afforded to those with a "right to use, acquire, or enjoy property." N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.

HOFFMAN v. WARREN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2023

Michigan Dep’t of State In any event, Defendants have established here that they satisfy each of the Fitchik factors for sovereign immunity. As to the first factor, Mr. … “A prosecutor bears the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing absolute immunity,” and “a prosecutor must show that he or she was functioning as the state’s advocate when performing the action(s) in question.”

Roach v. TRW, INC.

320 N.J. Super. 558 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1999

One of the goals of the reorganization was to "reduce staff with more clearly defined roles." … Abbamont, Barratt and Mehlman clearly involved complaints regarding actions of the employer.

Polyckronos v. Polyckronos

17 N.J. Misc. 250 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 1, 1939

Law 48, 52, stated that whatever may be our opinion of the policy of legislation beyond our state, we are bound by the principles of comity to recognize its validity unless it clearly contravenes the principles of public … Irwin, supra, what the court cannot admeasure as a finality the husband cannot limit by the purchase of immunity (separation agreement) from future liability should conditions arise in which justice impels a reassertion of

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.

State Troopers Fraternal Assoc. of NJ, Inc. v. State

149 N.J. 38 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 24, 1997

The practice of the State Police since 1970 of making this type of retroactive pay adjustment certainly qualifies as sufficiently longstanding and consistent to be incorporated into the agreement. … Contractual interests clearly may qualify as vested rights. United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 , 19 n. 16, 97 S.Ct. 1505 , 1516 n. 16, 52 L.Ed.2d 92 , 108 n. 16 (1977); Perry v.