Case law

Branca v. Matthews

317 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2004

Serrano, 367 N.J.Super. 450 , 843 A.2d 358, 364-65 (“We agree with the observation in James that in enacting AICRA, ‘the Legislature clearly intended to require that an injury be both permanent and serious to cross the verbal … It has already been established that range of motion tests alone, because of their subjective nature, do not suffice under the “objective, credible, evidence” standard established in Oswin.

Whitfield v. Blackwood

206 N.J. Super. 487 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 25, 1985

Plaintiff attempted to establish the standard of care owed and deviation therefrom through the testimony of the defendants and Dr. Lieberman, who was plaintiff's expert. … Here his trial strategy depicted very clearly that such doctrines as joint enterprise and captain of the ship would be the guiding principles in the jury's deliberation.

Estate of FK v. DMAHS

374 N.J. Super. 126 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 2005

If a statute speaks clearly to the precise question at issue, the courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress." Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. … Nor has DMAHS established that an annuitant may sell a commercial annuity, despite its contract terms.

Navarro v. Rodriguez

202 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 1984

See Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity (1972) Chapter 4. However, the New Jersey act does not reflect all the provisions contained in the California act. … It is the public policy of this State that public entities shall only be liable for their negligence within the limitations of this act and in accordance with the fair and uniform principles established in the Tort Claims

State v. Montesano

298 N.J. Super. 597 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1997

He said he qualified as an expert in narcotics in municipal courts and at least a dozen times in State Superior Court. He was accepted as qualified by the trial court. … The statute read together with the indictment identifies the elements the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the defendant on this count of the indictment.

Sterling Davis Dairy v. Freeman

253 F. Supp. 80 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 7, 1965

This circumstance Congress clearly wished to avoid. Under the Act and the milk order the burdens and consequent penalties for failure to abide by the elaborate scheme of reporting fall on the plaintiff. … Cf., discussion supra on the burden of establishing milk classification. 8 .

New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency v. A.B.

231 N.J. 354 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 2017

Clearly, A.B. failed to exercise the minimum degree of care. That failure placed A.F.’s physical, mental, and emotional condition in imminent danger of becoming impaired. … The Division argues that A.B.’s actions, including her refusal to allow A.F. and her infant son to return home, amounted to a “willful or intentional act” that qualified as abandonment under the statute.

In Re the Complaint of Dillahey

733 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1990

It is submitted, therefore, that for a structure to come within the scope of the statute limiting liability, it should not only qualify as a “vessel” under the more traditional tests but, in addition, it should be engaged … Hence, this court will reluctantly issue a restraining order, and leave to Congress and the Supreme Court the question of the appropriateness of such immunity. An appropriate order will be entered.

Oswin v. Shaw

250 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 2, 1991

There is no claim that her activities were limited to an extent qualifying her under this "non-permanent" injury category. … We are struck with the irony that plaintiff's injury clearly is not serious enough to qualify under Type 9 designed to include transitorily serious but "nonpermanent" injuries which disable a person for a substantial period

Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 13, 2021

Second, defendant argued that it relied in good faith on certain determinations that it qualified as a “trucking industry employer” and could therefore invoke the defense set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2. … If the statute’s plain language leads to a clearly understood result, the judicial inquiry is complete. Ibid.; Felix v.

Congregation B'Nai Yisroel v. Millburn Tp.

35 N.J. Super. 67 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 1955

There the court had to contend with the word lot, qualified by the phrase, "whereon the buildings are erected." … In this case, facts are shown, without contradiction, which clearly establish that `the lot' of the college, for all purposes of use, and *72 consequently of exemption from taxation, remains precisely as before the construction

COWAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2026

Grant recipients were required to contract with construction businesses admitted to the RREM program’s qualified pool of builders. (Id. ¶¶ 21, 44-45.) … Third, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 40-44.) The Court will only address the first argument because it agrees Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are time-barred.

Beatty v. Farmer

366 N.J. Super. 69 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 2004

A prima facie cause of action under the LAD is established when [t]he plaintiff [ ] demonstrate^] by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) applied *75 and was qualified for a … To establish pretext, he needed to establish “that (1) a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer than the employer’s proffered legitimate reason, or (2) the defendant’s proffered explanation is ‘unworthy

State v. Fortin

178 N.J. 540 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 6, 2004

This Court clearly set the production of a reliable database as an essential qualifier to Hazelwood’s testimony. … The court clearly was disinclined to pre-qualify any more prospective jurors, and the granting of an additional challenge might have required it to do so.

Borough of Glassboro v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 108

395 N.J. Super. 644 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 27, 2007

A municipality’s decision in the promotional process will not be disturbed by an arbitrator unless it is clearly arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Gaskill v. … Clearly, the arbitrator regarded that action as arbitrary, even if he did not use the specific word.

Rocappi, Inc. v. Taxation Div. Director

182 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 1981

The holding of the majority in the Hoeganaes case clearly controls the present case. … Rocappi was not qualified to do business in Massachusetts and did not indicate on its New Jersey tax returns that it had a place of business in Massachusetts.

First National City Bank v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 310 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 23, 1983

Plaintiff’s fiduciary activities in New Jersey preclude it from being qualified for the exemption. The subject facts are distinguishable from those in Diamondhead Corp. v. Taxation Div. … It held that, in such situations, interstate commerce is not immune from tax if the tests are met.

ROBINSON v. PAULHUS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2021

Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges these actions violated her “recognized and clearly established right to be free from unreasonable searches and intrusion into private matters within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment{[ … Finally, Defendants argue that the NJ TCA provides public officials with qualified immunity, (/d. at 26 (citing N.J. Stat.

Charles v. Reno

117 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 2000

Then, if the Court concludes Petitioner does not qualify for derivative citizenship, the Court will evaluate Petitioner’s Equal Protection arguments concerning the constitutionality of the INA provisions. II. … He is a child born out of wedlock, whose paternity has been established by legitimation.

Hayes v. Board of Trustees

421 N.J. Super. 43 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 2011

PTSD is a qualifying psychiatric diagnosis of a permanently disabling mental injury that can constitute the basis for ADR benefits. See Brunell v. … Thus, the record establishes that the manifestation was delayed, bringing petitioner's claim within the Crimaldi exception.