Case law

State v. Orlando

269 N.J. Super. 116 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 1993

We are also satisfied, contrary to defendant's argument, that the record clearly and convincingly established that the victim's in-court identification of defendant was based on the victim's own observations at the time of … Here, defendant failed to establish that he requested the prosecutor to produce the transcripts of Selig's plea hearing.

Monmouth Medical Center v. State

158 N.J. Super. 241 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1978

The federal statute requires participating states to provide qualified individuals with financial assistance in five general categories of medical treatment (including inpatient *248 hospital services). 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1396a … The federal concept of medical necessity is found most clearly defined in those cases dealing with Medicare legislation. *253 42 U.S.C.A. § 1395 et seq.

Carroll v. Cobb

139 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1976

think that that has been established satisfactorily to me. … All this was in violation of the legal principles approvingly expressed in this opinion and clearly called for broad judicial relief.

Alford v. Somerset County Welfare Board

158 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 21, 1978

(2) families who would be eligible for benefits provided under AFDC-U ( 42 U.S.C.A. § 607 , 45 C.F.R. § 248.1 (c) (3), N.J.S.A. 30:4D-3(f)(7), Public Assistance Manual (PAM) § 8541.2 (groups of individuals under 21 who qualify … group (3) above because each is under 21 and may be considered independent because each receives his or her own Social Security check to cover necessities in the amount of $47.50 a month, and because the amount so received clearly

Red Bank Bd. of Ed. v. WARRINGTON

138 N.J. Super. 564 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 14, 1976

In the light of this strong qualifying statement and, absent further clarifying legislation, we are not prepared to construe the general provision in section 7 ( N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3) authorizing the parties to agree on grievance … The other (§ 4) adds to N.J.S.A. 34:13A-5.3 this sentence: * * * Notwithstanding any procedures for the resolution of disputes, controversies or grievances established by any other statute, grievance procedures established

Tellado v. Time-Life Books, Inc.

643 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 1986

If, however, the portrayal functions primarily as a means of commercial exploitation, then such immunity will not be granted. … Another line of cases establishes that defendants use is not devoid of First Amendment protection simply because it is commercial speech. In Bigelow v.

State v. Contursi

44 N.J. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 1965

the validity of an arrest and the consequent right to make an incidental warrantless search has a thoroughly established definition. … We take it that Chief Justice Marshall’s word ‘suspicion’ would be acceptable if qualified by ‘well grounded.’

Tormee Construction, Inc. v. Mercer County Improvement Authority

143 N.J. 143 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 6, 1996

It has been widely recognized and clearly established that where the experience of a public contracting agency confirms the risk that its project will be threatened by labor disputes, interrupted by strikes or delayed by … The public work is clearly substantial, needed and important.

JONES v. EZ PASS NJ/NY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 2023

Apr. 11, 2022) (“NJTA qualifies as an arm of the state and is therefore immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment’). Such claims are, therefore, dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.’ See Blanciak v. … As such, Plaintiff fails to establish any basis on which the Court could infer fraudulent conduct by Defendants.

JONES v. EZ PASS NJ/NY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 2023

Apr. 11, 2022) (“NJTA qualifies as an arm of the state and is therefore immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment”). Such claims are, therefore, dismissed on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds.’ See Blanciak v. … As such, Plaintiff fails to establish any basis on which the Court could infer fraudulent conduct by Defendants.

Serraino v. Mar-D, Inc.

228 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 23, 1988

It would be inconsistent with the legislative intent to interpret these provisions imposing liability upon subcontractors for their violation of the Prevailing Wage Act as simultaneously immunizing a contractor from liability … Any general contractor could clearly underbid competitors for a public project by relying on a bid of a subcontractor, knowing that the subcontractor would have to violate the provisions of the Prevailing Wage Act to meet

Mason v. Township of Cranbury

68 N.J.L. 149 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 9, 1902

, establish such fire department,” &e. … The purpose would have been somewhat more clearly shown had a comma been inserted after the words “light for public use,” in the latter amendment.'

Smith v. City of Newark

128 N.J. Super. 417 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 1974

the New Jersey Constitution (1947) in that it constitutes “special” legislation: creating, increasing or decreasing the emoluments, term or tenure rights of public officers or employees; granting an exclusive privilege, immunity … The challenged provisions of the new legislation which accord a preference to a resident over an equally qualified nonresident do not contravene the constitutional mandate of appointments and promotions according to merit

Brady v. Board of Review

152 N.J. 197 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 22, 1997

“good cause” and thus were qualified for unemployment benefits. … Under the plan, qualified workers fell into two categories.

State v. Tune

17 N.J. 100 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 20, 1954

. *109 At the argument of this motion the defense was apprized categorically of the fact "that the evidence clearly indicated that there was sodomy connected with the case." … We perceive that the only purpose was to have the jury hear the witness' answers clearly when it was evident that the witness was not making himself heard and the jurors had difficulty in hearing him.

In re Paterson Counseling Center, Inc.

237 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1989

Consequently, the Department encouraged its employees who were involved in conducting drug treatment programs to establish private non-profit corporations to perform this responsibility. … Fourth, as indicated by the discussion in section I of this opinion, the directive was not “expressly provided by or clearly and obviously inferable from” the Act.

Zamboni v. Stamler

199 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1985

Super. 90 (App.Div. 1971), is clearly misplaced. … As we expressly pointed out in Bergen County, supra at 95, "[t]he prosecutor had the power ... to appoint to the unclassified position of county investigator any qualified individuals, including members of the Bergen county

Kroeger v. Stahl

148 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 7, 1957

violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ; that operation of the zoning ordinance amounts to an undue burden on interstate commerce; and that his claimed status as a “public utility” renders him immune … Nor is plaintiff engaged in an extension of an already established or even prospective communications “chain”, within the above-described context.

Rothman v. Rothman

65 N.J. 219 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 5, 1974

The husband was held to have acquired a vested right immune from the effect of such legislation. … the desired end. 6 The suggestion has been offered that in undertaking to effect an equitable distribution of marital assets, the trial court should, to establish a starting point, presumptively assign some proportion, generally

Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood

696 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1988

A section 1983 action may be brought for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 . … The Ordinance clearly applies to “dish antennae ... or satellite receiving station[s].” Ordinance sec. 2.1.