Case law

Stroinski v. Office of Public Defender

134 N.J. Super. 21 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 1975

We affirm. [1] In 1969 plaintiff, qualifying for Public Defender assistance, was represented by an attorney from that office in connection with charges of breaking, entry and larceny. … The most significant New Jersey case, prior to the establishment of the Office of the Public Defender is State v. Rush, supra .

Doe v. Poritz

142 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1995

For Tier Two notification, only those community organizations that own or operate an establishment where children gather under their care, or where women are cared for, shall qualify, and only those that are “likely to encounter … Labels, of course, do not “immunize [a law] from scrutiny under the Ex Post Facto Clause. Subtle ex post facto violations are no more permissible than overt ones.”

United States v. Ewell

252 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2003

The evidence clearly indicates that the FBI has imposed standards controlling its PCR/ STR testing in accordance with standards *115 set by the industry. … The Qualifications of the Government’s Expert There is no dispute that the Government’s Expert was qualified to testify as such.

Evangelou v. Terzano

298 N.J. Super. 467 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 1997

It shall be and hereby is established that Defendant, Terzano[,] was the agent of Defendant, NJAFIUA; C. The Cross-Motion of Defendant, Terzano, shall be and hereby is dismissed. … In support of its motion, the NJAFIUA argued that insurers, agents, and brokers were immune from liability for failure to advise customers or insureds of additional or increased limits of UM/UIM coverage pursuant to N.J.S.A

Ballesteros v. New Jersey Property Liability Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

530 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 1982

If plaintiff’s interpretation of Section 526 of the Insurance Law were correct, then the statute would unconstitutionally qualify the Supreme Court’s power by establishing geographic boundaries on the power of a branch of … The court has dismissed plaintiffs constitutional arguments because they are clearly without merit.

Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 16, 2025

Instead, defendants assert that charity care regulates how plaintiffs use their property as to qualified indigent patients. … As to the first Penn Central factor -- the economic impact of the regulation -- the Appellate Division recognized that plaintiffs had “clearly established . . . evidence sufficient to support a finding that [charity care

State Ex Rel. Ja

195 N.J. 324 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2008

Clearly, "in many, if not most, instances precise contemporaneity is not possible, and hence a slight lapse [in time] is allowable." Fed.R.Evid. 803(c) advisory committee's note. … We recognize, however, that a statement inadmissible as a present sense impression may qualify as an excited utterance. B.

Automatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co.

54 F. Supp. 105 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 12, 1944

It clearly appears from this record that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” within the meaning of the said rule. … The application of the rule is clearly circumscribed by the limitation.

JOHN P. BROWN v. PATRICIA BROWN (L-2367-20, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 2022

A-0384-21 5  Patricia Brown moved for summary judgment, arguing the litigation privilege immunized her from all these claims. … in the complaint; when it is recorded as part of, or in the course of, a judicial proceeding, and has some relation to and was intended "to achieve the objects of the litigation," Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 216 – elements clearly

Colgate's v. Colgate

23 N.J. Eq. 372 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1873

dated Eebruary 5th, 1864, and a codicil thereto dated March 3d, 1865, by which he directed the payment of his debts, &c., and gave and. devised all the residue of his estate to his executors, or' such of them as should qualify … with the estate in dower, and more clearly to show that these provisions for the widow were intended by him in lieu of dower.

Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Christie

850 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2012

Moreover, to satisfy the procedural due process analysis, Plaintiffs must not only establish the existence of a protected interest, but also that they have been deprived of that interest. … While Plaintiffs are clearly unhappy with New Jersey’s procedure for obtaining an Exemption to the one-handgun-per-month purchase limitation, the procedural due process protections of the 14th Amendment do not provide Plaintiffs

Passaic County PBA Local 197 v. Office of Passaic County Prosecutor

385 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2006

Continuing, the judge concluded: It is clearly reasonable that, in most instances, the report documenting the reasonable suspicion would be prepared by the agency employing that officer and subsequently reviewed by the chief … While there’s no doubt that a municipal police department and/or a county sheriffs department qualify as a law enforcement agency, it follows that a county prosecutor’s office must be similarly deemed a law enforcement agency

In Re Estate of Quarg

397 N.J. Super. 559 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2008

As to Francine, the judge recognized that, while not qualifying as Robert's statutory wife or registered domestic partner, Francine was his "partner, caregiver, builder of dreams and assets," thus entitling her the equitable … remedy of a constructive trust establishing her share in Robert's estate.

REDO v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 2024

State Defendants State sovereign immunity, however, “comprises more than just immunity from suit in federal court. It also includes a State's immunity from liability.” Lombardo, 540 F.3d at 195. … Thus, the VMHs are clearly sub-departments of the State that are not “persons” amenable to suit under §1983.

Hackensack Meadowlands Devel. Comm'n v. Mun. Landfill Auth.

127 N.J. Super. 160 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1974

Since one can reasonably and readily conceive of facts which would support the Legislature's findings and the Commissioner's regulations, the onus is on defendant to establish that the Legislature's and Commissioner's actions … Further, the regulations and statute in question are clearly within the authority of the State's police power to conserve its landfill sites.

State v. Green

417 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2010

Those documents are clearly relevant to whether Soke was properly trained and operated the Stalker Lidar device in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions on the day in question. Cf. … Here, the judge concluded that defendant was not qualified to testify as an expert and barred admission of his testimony and opinings.

Unsatisfied Claim & Judgment Fund Board v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

138 N.J. 185 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 23, 1994

The statute established a special method of recovery in the case of “an insured tortfeasor” as opposed to those tortfeasors who are completely uninsured. … The foregoing discussion indicates that the Fund clearly does not have a “subrogation” right against NJM.

State v. Snyder

190 N.J. Super. 626 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1983

The outline of the metal trigger clearly appeared as a purple line on the officer's index finger. Because of the wooden grips there was no mark on his palm. … Forensic Science, Vol. 3, § 38.08 (1981). [9] Detective Shackoor was clearly qualified as an expert witness by virtue of his training and experience in the use of the TMDT.

Tulipano v. US Life Ins. Co.

57 N.J. Super. 269 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 7, 1959

There can be no doubt that the right to be a beneficiary may be qualified or limited to certain classes by statute. … The legislative mandate is clear and unequivocal: N.J.S.A. 17:34-31( A )(4) clearly precludes the insured employee from appointing his employer as his beneficiary.

Geller v. Department of the Treasury

53 N.J. 591 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 5, 1969

In our view her letter of November 18 clearly authorized “contribution deductions at the legal rate due” in her case. … The questions thereafter posed in the letter did not qualify nor reveal an intention to qualify the authorization.