Case law

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.

Lasky v. BOROUGH OF HIGHTSTOWN

426 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 11, 2012

In contending otherwise, defendant relies on three cases that, it argues, implicitly establish that a request for assistance is required to establish a public accommodation disability discrimination claim. … In doing so, the court failed to appreciate the distinction, clearly drawn in federal cases under the ADA, between particularized claims of a failure to reasonably accommodate and generalized claims of an overall lack of

K. S. B. Technical Sales Corp. v. North Jersey District Water Supply Commission

75 N.J. 272 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 23, 1977

The distinction has proved useful to restrain the ancient concept of municipal tort immunity, not because of any logic in the distinction, but rather because sound policy dictated that governmental immunity should not envelop … The court held simply that “trade regulations are clearly subject to Commerce Clause restrictions, but statutes that merely specify the conditions of state purchases are not.” Id. at 725 .

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.

State v. Dixon

125 N.J. 223 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 1991

It was, as he said, an attempt to obtain qualified jurors. … Does the jury’s verdict establish death eligibility?

Heli-Coil Corporation v. Webster

222 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 1963

Likewise, he would qualify as “such * * * director” who might be liable under section 16(b). … The cases decided under section 16 (b) establish the rule that in determining profit, the highest sale prices are to be matched with the lowest purchase prices within the periods involved. Smolowe v.

BTD-1996, NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.

333 N.J. Super. 476 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 3, 2000

In nay view, N.J.S.A 22A:4-8 is immune from attack, even though the charges are labeled a tax, rather than a fee or assessment, since the charges are imposed by the Legislature, rather than a municipality. … Anyone challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of establishing its unconstitutionality. State v. One 1990 Honda Accord, supra, 154 N.J. at 377 , 712 A.2d 1148 ; Newark Superior Officers Ass’n v.

Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Rice

774 F. Supp. 317 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 1991

Subsequently, defendant, while admitting that it cannot comply with the terms of the 1989 permit, filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the Air Force is immune from civil penalties. … Additionally, plaintiffs take strong exception to defendant’s argument that the EPA is specially qualified to enforce and remedy the situation.

Ullmann v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.

87 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1965

"Unlike other modes of discovery, not similarly qualified, which cast the burden of resisting relief upon the respondent, the applicant must establish affirmatively the propriety of an inspection." 2 Schnitzer and Wildstein … Giving appropriate weight to each, the production of tax returns should not be ordered unless it clearly appears they are relevant to the subject matter of the action or to the issues raised thereunder, and further, that

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.

State ex rel. D. G.

174 N.J. Super. 243 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 1980

G. had already established a relationship with MHS’s therapists and that any decision in this regard should be made only after considering the consequences of switching therapy in midstream and in light of Catholic Services … Indeed, the only item petitioner seeks which would qualify as a court record is a report *249 prepared by DYFS at the court’s request, which was filed with the court, thereby becoming a court record.

State v. R.W.

200 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1985

The materials submitted with the motion established the movie had been shown at the beginning of the trial on the evening of Monday, January 9 to an audience of 60 million people and was second only to “The Day After” in … Here the court determined that the infant was qualified as a witness, a ruling which we do not review.

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. Flower

224 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 1987

It is "an established principle of our federalist system" that states may afford "individual liberties more expansive than those afforded by the federal constitution." State v. Novembrino, 105 N.J. 95, 144-145 (1987). … We reject the contention that tax investigations are immune from the Miranda requirements for warnings to be given a person in custody. [ 88 S.Ct. at 1505 ] This court is satisfied that when the DYFS investigator elicited

In Re Opinion 33 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law

160 N.J. 63 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1999

In any event, we recommend that, in establishing policies and procedures for the selection of bond counsel, issuers provide particular consideration for New Jersey law firms. … It is, therefore, the view of this Panel that counsel be selected pursuant to an established set of criteria that include price as a factor.

Charles Beseler Co. v. O'Gorman & Young, Inc.

188 N.J. 542 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 4, 2006

Among other reasons given to support its conclusion, the panel below employed established rules of construction applicable when interpreting insurance policies. … That language clearly excludes only injuries that result from a subjective intent to injure.

Brock v. Claridge Hotel & Casino

711 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 1989

If an employee qualifies for exemption under this proviso, it is not necessary to test that employee’s qualifications in detail under paragraphs (a) through (f) of § 541.1 of this part. … We believed this was possibly an indicator of oversight, but clearly not indicative of a deliberate strategy to violate the statute.

Seaboard Landing, LLC v. Borough of Penns Grove

28 N.J. Tax 607 · New Jersey Tax Court · Dec 3, 2015

The Freeze Act does not contain language qualifying the revaluation limitation in the fashion suggested by Seaboard. … In a May 8, 2012 written opinion the court concluded that the property does not qualify for an exemption.

Reck v. Director, Division of Taxation

18 N.J. Tax 598 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 21, 2000

The EY Keogh Plan was a qualified pension plan under I.R.C. § 401(a). … The decision by Ernst & Young to establish a Keogh Plan for the benefit of its partners was a business decision no different from the partnership’s decision to establish the EY 401(k) Plan for the benefit to its partners

State v. Kozarski

128 N.J. Super. 513 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1974

Other evidence produced tended to establish that from the inception of the Public Defender's Office in July 1967 until June 30, 1973 the act was invoked only two or three times. … Indeed, it would appear that defendant may be uniquely qualified for treatment as an habitual offender.