Case law

Kadetsky v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education

164 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2001

Rather, the undisputed factual record reveals that Kelpsh followed established procedures to investigate Kadetsky’s complaints and rectify his personnel record in response to that investigation. … When viewed against this backdrop, Ka-detsky’s speech fails to qualify as speech touching upon a matter of public interest.

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

LaSalla v. LaSalla

324 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 1999

(emphasis added) By creating an independent right to a pension in a qualifying spouse over which the member has no control, Seavey v. … Insofar as death would obviate the necessity of providing the benefits here involved, the impact of divorce was clearly the relevant consideration.

Mahon v. Reilly's Radio Cabs, Inc.

212 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1986

Clearly, the issues raised on this appeal do not relate to the jurisdiction of the trial court or the public interest. See, e.g., Naftal v. Township Committee of Eastampton, 123 N.J. Super. 450, 452 (App.Div. 1973). … While this rule is qualified by the exception permitting original review by an appellate tribunal of errors which adversely affect the substantial rights of parties and have a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result

Hanover Ins. Group v. Cameron

122 N.J. Super. 51 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 8, 1973

Order accelerating discovery, establishing timetable and fixing September 22, 1972 as date for pretrial conference filed July 10, 1972. 7. … On the same day Hanover assigned the claim of Karl against Cameron to a qualified investigator for the first time.

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.

Rowe v. Pittsgrove Township

153 N.J. Super. 274 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 1, 1977

The evidence clearly indicates that the buildings being used by plaintiffs as housing are unfit for human habitation. … The policy section of N.J.S.A. 20:4-2 declares the purpose of the act to be the establishment of a fair and equitable treatment of displaced persons.

Lewis v. Harris

378 N.J. Super. 168 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2005

I join in the majority decision essentially for the reasons so clearly expressed by Judge Skillman. … To be sure, longstanding traditions restricting the right to marry are not immune from constitutional challenge. Yet, plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v.

Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software, Inc.

50 F. Supp. 2d 318 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1999

It appears the prosecution of the instant lawsuit by Syncsort is, however, immunized from antitrust liability. … In such “establishment claim” cases, a plaintiff need only demonstrate the tests relied upon by the defendant do not establish the proposition for which they are cited. Id.

Moore v. Bd. of Freeholders of Mercer County

76 N.J. Super. 396 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 9, 1962

Plaintiffs are clearly entitled to inspect and copy the particular records they have designated. … The records which claim plaintiffs' interest clearly qualify as public records. In this connection, see Ferry v. Williams , Taxpayers' Ass'n of Cape May v. City of Cape May (and New Jersey cases reviewed), Casey v.

BASS v. HOWARD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 14, 2019

“In order to establish a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in federal court, a plaintiff's claims must establish either federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity jurisdiction under 28 … To allege a Title VII prima facie claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action despite being qualified

Truglio v. Planet Fitness, Inc.

360 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 2018

established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee' as established by State or Federal law; and finally, that the plaintiff is an 'aggrieved consumer.' " Spade-Wenger … As a result, Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of a 'clearly established legal right' under the CFA and therefore cannot, by proxy, establish a violation of the TCCWNA."), appeal dismissed , No. 15-2626 (3rd Cir.

Valentin v. Bootes

325 N.J. Super. 590 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 1998

In these circumstances, we perceive no impediment to the complete release of Jordan's personnel file inasmuch as plaintiff's need for the material clearly outweighs defendants' claims of purported confidentiality. [ Id. at … The Jaffee court did not fully define the scope of the privilege, but held that the privilege was not qualified, and thus not subject to a balancing test based on the need for the confidential information.

Kvaerner Process v. Barham-McBride

368 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 2004

The judge found that the transactions between the parties nominally qualified for construction lien eligibility and that the materials and labor evidenced by certain invoices had actually been delivered to the project. … Defendants were clearly entitled to such discovery as was necessary for them to meet the issue posed by plaintiff's complaint, i.e., to establish the validity of the lien claim.

In Re Application of Ronson Corporation

164 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1978

. *70 The proposed landing site meets the requirements of N.J.A.C. 16:54-4.1 et seq., and has been found satisfactory from a safety point of view by a qualified aeronautical inspector. … Clearly he [the Commissioner] should, at the very least, acknowledge the relevance of the local zoning ordinance with respect to applications *73 for private heliports and helistops.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

564 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2008

At the time of the 1995-1996 school year, the Clearinghouse reviewed students’ applications and placed applicants into one of three categories: qualifier, partial qualifier, or nonqualifier. … Pottstown Memorial Medical Center, 154 F.3d 113, 123 (3d Cir.1998) (to establish a violation *356 under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must prove, inter alia, “that he is ‘otherwise qualified’ for the position sought

Entrot v. BASF Corp.

359 N.J. Super. 162 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 2003

As noted, the motion judge ruled that plaintiff had not established this prerequisite. … These companion cases clearly indicate that an analysis of employment relationships involves multi-factorial analysis rather than simplistic taxomony.

Behringer Est. v. Princeton Med. Ctr.

249 N.J. Super. 597 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1991

He is well-qualified as an expert in this field. … AIDS is a viral disease that weakens or destroys the body's immune system.

McClellan v. F. A. North Co.

14 N.J. Misc. 760 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 2, 1936

Therefore the question of damages, so far as it has not been settled by any judgment, is clearly open to litigation in the present action. … These facts are clearly sufficient to indicate that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the value of the piano. The plaintiffs must prove their actual damage.

PAUL J. BANACH VS. ALEX TARAKANOV(L-6238-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 12, 2017

N.J.R.E. 702 identifies when expert testimony is permissible and requires the experts to be qualified in their respective fields. N.J.R.E. 703 addresses the foundation for expert testimony. … Immunity applies as long as the insurer establishes the following: (1) the named insured's coverage limits were at least the minimum coverage required by law; (2) the named insured's