Case law

State v. Julie Kuropchak

221 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 28, 2015

Occasionally, however, a trial court’s findings may be so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction. (pp 15-17) 2. … In Chun, this Court set forth mandatory guidelines for establishing the Alcotest’s reliability.

Sitkowski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of Lavallette

238 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1990

The 20 day limit was clearly designed to insulate the recipient of a building permit or other favorable disposition from the threat of unrestrained future challenge. … We do not suggest, however, that a building permit cloaks the holder with complete immunity from future challenges.

Franklin Tp. v. BD. OF ED. N. HUNTERDON REG. HIGH SCH.

74 N.J. 345 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 1977

Although the Court allowed a maximum deviation of 11.9%, it clearly announced that such justifications could be of only limited utility. … board had power to appoint a county school superintendent, prepare an annual budget, levy taxes and distribute those which were delinquent, take charge of educational programs and supervisory services, employ teachers and establish

Sanders v. Langemeier

199 N.J. 366 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 4, 2009

In establishing the special policy, the Legislature stated that it intended “to assist certain low income individuals in [New Jersey] and encourage their greater compliance in satisfying the mandatory private passenger automobile … Harris, 35 N.J. 270, 279 , 173 A.2d 1 (1961), it may not be expanded beyond the remedial purposes the Legislature clearly envisioned.

N.C. Housing Associates v. Elayne Hightower-Cooper

281 N.J. Super. 317 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 23, 1995

R. 4:49-l(c). *323 Clearly, the court herein had the duty and authority to vacate this judgment of possession sua sponte. … The burden of proof is upon the landlord to establish it.

Mourning v. Correctional Medical Services

300 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1997

They are clearly *233 remedial and do not constitute ex post facto punishment.” … Health care service requests are made through established institutional procedures.

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.

Marcus Sanchez, Etc. v. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 2025

Even if the streetlight was functioning at the time of the accident, the overgrown tree branches clearly show reduced illumination levels at the street level where the accident occurred … A-1189-23 27 liability [by] hiding behind the Tariff," because, under the common law, the Supreme Court abrogated a water company's immunity in Weinberg v.

Tarabokia v. Structure Tone

429 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2012

,]” “assumfe] responsibility for complying with all applicable standards, regulations, rules or guidelines” to ensure safety, “establish safety methods and good practices to be carried out by [their] workers! … While the general contractor’s immunity, “ ‘[is not] disturbed by the exercise of merely such general superintendence as is necessary to insure that the subcontractor performs his agreement^]’ ” Muhammad, supra, 176 N.J.

Veloso v. Western Bedding Supply Co., Inc.

281 F. Supp. 2d 743 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 2003

Although Defendants couch their motion in broad terms, they are clearly most concerned with the possible introduction of evidence relating to the Revised Manual. … To do so, it established a “gatekeeping role for the [trial judge].” Id. at 597 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 .

Stanford Enterprises v. City of East Orange

1 N.J. Tax 317 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 22, 1980

Bamberger & Co. case, in view of the proximity of the sale date to the assessment date, when one considers the normal contractual arrangements preceding an actual sale, the sale could have been clearly relevant under the … Recognizing that the subsequent sale was made under economic compulsion,. the Court held that such factor could readily have been given suitable qualifying weight without affecting the substantial probative utility of the

Accuzip, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation

25 N.J. Tax 158 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 13, 2009

One such program allows businesses to clean up mailing lists to prevent duplicate mailings and to pre-sort mail so that businesses’ mailings can qualify for lower postage rates with the United States Postal Service. … For the in-State activities of the foreign corporation to immunize the corporation from taxation measured by income, such activities must be limited solely to: i.

State of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Boone

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 2024

We defer to the trial court's factual findings on the motion unless they were "clearly mistaken" or "so wide of the mark" that the interests of justice require appellate intervention, State v. … See Regis, 208 N.J. at 449 n.3 (emphasizing "the Legislature qualified its mandate to remain in a single lane with the crucial phrase 'as nearly as practicable'").

Bittle v. Camden & Atlantic Railroad

55 N.J.L. 615 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1893

Cas. 193, to say whether any facts have been established by evidence from which negligence may be reasonably inferred. … It follows that if the real facts have not been established by the evidence, but remain in substantial dispute, the trial judge must submit them, and the inferences to be drawn from those which the jury find established,

In Re Synchronoss Securities Litigation

705 F. Supp. 2d 367 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 2010

That is why the Court of Appeals stated that, “[ujnder Rule 12(c), judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment … However, such conjecture cannot qualify as a valid claim.

State v. Conroy

397 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 2008

Sentencing a qualified defendant under the step-down provision is mandatory, not discretionary. … However, the step-down provision instructs the court to decrease the sentence of a qualified third offender.

MT. BETHEL HUMUS v. State

273 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 24, 1994

Bethel) did not qualify for an exemption under the provisions of N.J.S.A. 13:9B-4d of the FWPA. Mt. Bethel appeals from that determination and we affirm. Mt. … Bethel had failed to establish that it had received preliminary site plan approval for its operation prior to July 1, 1988, the effective date of the FWPA. Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's determination.

Nappe v. Nappe

20 N.J. 337 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 16, 1956

Such a situation is clearly distinguishable from the *345 one before the court here, where the respondent-wife established a residence in the State of Nevada sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement of the statute … The only interest that the wife ever had was one share of qualifying stock in one of the companies and two in the other, the certificates for which were never delivered to her, and this, she says was in consideration of her

Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. the State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2024

a Health Care Subsidy Fund (HCSF), N.J.S.A. 26:2H- 18.58, to distribute subsidies to qualifying facilities. … Giving all favorable inferences to plaintiffs, Kearny, 214 N.J. at 91, the record shows they clearly established before the court evidence sufficient to support a

State v. Kromphold

162 N.J. 345 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 2000

Ill An appellate court may modify a sentence only if the sentencing court was “clearly mistaken.” Jarbath, supra, 114 N.J. at 401 , 555 A.2d 559 . … The serious nature of the injuries sustained both by Shin Ru Shih and Jenfei Shih clearly justified the trial court’s application of the l(a)2 aggravating factor.