Case law

Gilbert v. Unsatisfied Claim, Etc., Bd.

85 N.J. Super. 143 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 21, 1964

(Emphasis added) The Fund argues that under the literal construction of the statute it is mandatory that a judgment be entered against *147 Newell to qualify plaintiffs for payment by the Fund; that inability to locate Newell … The facts in that case are clearly distinguishable.

Gipson v. Supermarkets General Corp.

564 F. Supp. 50 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1983

However, assuming for the purpose of this motion that this threat was made, this fact alone does not establish any police involvement with the case which would permit the court to make a finding that the Pathmark personnel … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

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

In Re Fisler

131 N.J. Eq. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 1942

The words "issue" and "lawful issue" in this paragraph were not qualified by the testatrix. (Italics mine; also mine in the following three paragraphs.) … In this paragraph the words in question are not qualified. In two instances testatrix did add words which may be construed as words of qualification.

SALVATORE SALSA VS. KATHERINE SALSA (FM-12-0268-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 2021

The standard of living established during the marriage or civil union; e. … A spouse who asserts an asset is "immune" from equitable distribution bears the burden of establishing such immunity. Ibid.; Dotsko v. Dotsko, 244 N.J. Super. 668, 676 (App.

Sheerr v. Evesham Tp.

184 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1982

It might be argued that the regulations were designed to prevent the loss of a water supply, the loss of the visual enhancement of the property and the loss of wild life, thus qualifying as legislation designed to prevent … They fall clearly within the rule of Morris Cty. Land , which held that restricting the use of land to open space was a taking. VIII.

GUTTENBERG S. & L. ASS'N, CORP. v. Rivera

85 N.J. 617 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 21, 1981

However, the act clearly is meant to do far more than protect residential tenants from harassment by landlords. … The act affects the rights of an owner, whose interests in the property are clearly greater than those of a mortgagee.

Hansen Savings Bank v. Office of Thrift Supervision

758 F. Supp. 240 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 1991

. § 1464 (t)(3)(A), (West Supp.1990), states in part: (A) Certain Qualifying Supervisory Goodwill Included in Calculating Core Capital.— ... … [A]n eligible savings association may include qualifying supervisory goodwill in calculating core capital.

Dittmar v. Continental Casualty Co.

50 N.J. Super. 593 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1958

He died four months later, but meanwhile he attempted some door-to-door selling and gave a friend some assistance in establishing a grocery department in his store. … The case is clearly distinguishable. We are referred to Shaffer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 133 N. J. L. 53 (Sup.

Enriquez v. W. Jersey Health Sys.

342 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 2001

It is also essential that the plaintiff establish damages. Id. at 965. … If plaintiff's allegations are true, she has established a prima facie case of trade libel.

Trailways, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City

179 N.J. Super. 258 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1980

A declared purpose to regulate arguably tends to establish the exaction as a regulatory license fee. … N.J.S.A. 48:4-14.1 clearly prohibits any such municipal license fees.

New Jersey Physicians United Reciprocal Exchange v. Boynton & Boynton, Inc.

141 F. Supp. 3d 298 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2015

Best Capital Adequacy Ratio (“BCAR”) score, of 183.6, . which “qualifies [NJ PURE] for an A+ + (Superior) rating.” . Counterclaim ¶¶ 32-35. … Judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) will be granted where the moving party clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact to be resolved, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

Sunbeam Corp. v. Windsor-Fifth Avenue, Inc.

14 N.J. 222 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 1953

The specific language used by the Legislature clearly expresses the legislative intent that no other clause in the contract may be resorted to in order to deprive the statutory clause of its full effect, at least insofar … The statute immunizes certain “fair trade” contracts, requires the provision relating to “close out” sales to be incorporated therein, and establishes the existence of substantive rights of action for violation thereof.

K.J. v. TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2022

“[T]his provision qualifies the general declaration of immunity in Section 2–1(a).” Turner v. Twp. of Irvington, 63 A.3d 1233, 1239 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). … The school district argued that, in order to be stripped of its immunity under § 59:2-1.3(a)(1), the plaintiff needed to establish that the school committed a “willful, wanton or grossly negligent” act in addition to showing

State v. Hakum Brown State v. Rodney Brown (083353) (Essex County, Middlesex County, & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 2021

SOMA requires qualifying sex offenders to wear an electronic ankle bracelet that tracks their movements via global positioning satellite (GPS). Id. at 277. … As the Poritz Court stated, “[l]abels, of course, do not ‘immunize [a law] from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause.’” Poritz, 142 N.J. at 62 (second alteration in original) (quoting Collins v.

J.D. v. M.D.F.

207 N.J. 458 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2011

Id. at 262-64 , 870 A.2d 307 (noting that purposeful *484 “is the highest form of mens rea contained in our penal code, and the most difficult to establish”). … Nevertheless, it would only qualify as a predicate act if it were both committed with a purpose to harass and if the act was “likely to cause annoyance or alarm.” Ibid.

United States v. Board of Educ. of City of Union City

697 F. Supp. 167 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 1988

Only a portion of each of these checks may clearly be established as damages, although the claim was undoubtedly false. The check for $70,000 was delivered to Mazziota-D’Agostino and returned to Orlando the next day. … However, not every false statement made to the government qualifies as a claim. United States v. Greenberg, 237 F.Supp. 439, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).

In re N.J.A.C. 17:1-6.4, 17:1-7.5 & 17:1-7.10

454 N.J. Super. 386 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2018

In general, an eligibility statute provides applicable guidelines for determining whether an applicant qualifies for benefits. … Although we invalidate N.J.A.C. 17:1-7.5(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4), we uphold N.J.A.C. 17:1-7.5(c)(1) because that provision merely establishes that the initial IME will be provided at no cost to the applicant. *941 V.

In Re Tufi Application

182 N.J. Super. 631 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 10, 1982

He followed these instructions despite his awareness, clearly evidenced by the record, that he was violating federal law. … The standard of review in considering an appeal from a Commission ruling is clearly enunciated in In re Boardwalk Regency, 180 N.J.

Carroll v. DeMartini

19 N.J. Super. 136 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1952

In that instance the effect thereof would not create a legally qualified status of the parties to enter into a binding marital contract on the date of the New York marriage. … Besides that, the long failure of plaintiff to act clearly evidences a guilt of laches and good cause to conclude her right of enforcement now would be inequitable.