Case law

In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of R.F. Svp 490-08

217 N.J. 152 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 2014

The panel concluded “that the record does not support the trial court’s determination that R.F. does not qualify for [SVPA] commitment.” … Moreover, we cannot say that Judge Perretti clearly erred by accepting the opinion of Dr.

New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission v. Citizens to Make Mayor-Council Government Work

107 N.J. 380 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1987

, * * * or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed * * *. … The demise of that immunity had been foreshadowed, at least in part, for several years.” Id. at 399 (footnote omitted).

Macchi v. Connecticut General Insurance

354 N.J. Super. 64 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 20, 2002

According to that letter, because plaintiff was not “occupying” the Corvette at the time of the accident, she could not qualify as an “insured person.” … That construction would render illusory the term of the policy establishing a $1,000,000 UM/UIM limit. See Cook-Sauvageau v.

Jeremy Baratta v. City of Perth Amboy

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 6, 2024

So, they're clearly not sanctioning this behavior. It appears that they are dismissing it. Or [they are] trying to correct it. … of antagonism coupled with timing to establish a causal link."

Clevenger v. Moore

71 N.J.L. 148 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1904

It is intimated rather than urged that the suit must have been brought in the United States courts, but this point is clearly untenable. … There were but four directors, and one of those had not qualified.

SALVADOR v. CITY OF UNION CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2025

whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the official’s conduct.” … Because Plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege the “constitutional violation” prong, the Court does not engage in further analysis of qualified immunity.)

State in the Interest of, A.A.M.

228 N.J. Super. 9 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 23, 1988

Clearly, probable cause exists that A.A.M. possessed the controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute *13 same, violative of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5. … A.A.M. argues that the qualifying phrase “which involve the distribution for pecuniary gain” means that the State must present evidence of an actual transaction with the exchange of money.

McKelway v. Seymour

29 N.J.L. 321 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1862

That whatever part is not found necessary, and shall not be actually so used, shall revert, clearly implying that, if necessary and actually so used, it shall not so revert, although used also for other purposes. 2. … The plaintiff, then, had no right of entry upon the lands, so long as the qualified fee of the water power company remained.

City Ass'n of Supervisors & Administrators v. State Operated School District

311 N.J. Super. 300 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 8, 1998

Here, the grievance qualified for arbitration because vacation entitlements for twelve-month employees in administrative positions are a term and condition of employment. … Clearly, the purpose of the State takeover was to make the local school district more efficient and responsive to educational and economic reform.

Urban Farms, Inc. v. Seel

87 N.J. Super. 177 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1965

It appears that the president of plaintiff corporation orally informed defendants in January 1964 that an investigation of Jurgensen indicated that the firm was properly qualified and that it could become an approved builder … It is argued that the purchase of a lot from plaintiff by a builder (entitling him to approval) conclusively establishes his interest in this entire undertaking.

State of New Jersey v. R.A.M.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 2025

Therefore, D.P. qualified as a victim of domestic violence under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13). … The Legislature clearly intended for courts to apply aggravating factor fifteen to defendants that have an established history of committing domestic violence and are convicted of committing a new offense against a victim

MORTON v. Mayor & Council of Tp. of Clark

102 N.J. Super. 84 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1968

This power of administration within the confines of the local ordinance is qualified in situations where a party applies for a variance to establish a "use" in an area which excludes such "use." … If the variance is approved, the applicant is entitled to a permit to establish such a use.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY BERRY STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KENNETH DANIELS STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEVELL BURNETT (17-06-1583, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2022

That analysis was insufficient, especially with respect to Berry's motion, given that the three defendants clearly operated at different levels of authority within the criminal operation. … The evidence seized from Berry's Sanford Avenue residence, for example, clearly shows his involvement in drug trafficking, but not his supervisory role within the organization.

Rosencrans v. Fry

12 N.J. 88 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 1953

The decedent’s widow was named executrix of the will and qualified as such on April 3, 1945, and Ery and the widow qualified on the same day as trustees of the trust created by the 19th paragraph of the will. … Fry qualified as ancillary executor in Florida.

SHAIKH v. GERMADNIG

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 2025

On April 30, Chief Judge Bumb indicated her receipt of the letter, and expressed that Plaintiff, who has “knowledge of the doctrine of judicial immunity” “is acting in bad faith, and with an improper purpose,” clearly … Plaintiff also cites three Supreme Court cases and one Arizona state appellate court case about judicial immunity. (Mot. at 4.)

Sautto v. Edenboro Apartments, Inc.

84 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 7, 1964

The prevailing rule requires that reliance thereon be clearly established. See Roselle v. Moonachie, 49 N.J. Super. 35 ( App. Div. 1958), reaffirming 48 N.J. Super. 17 ( App. Div. 1957). … Super., at p. 94 ) The trend is toward the application of equitable principles of estoppel where the interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate. Note, Gruber v.

Pastore v. County of Essex

237 N.J. Super. 371 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 15, 1989

Clearly, this provision for restoration discloses the drafters contemplated that a conviction would cause the forfeiture of an "employment" and not merely of an "office or position." … We next turn to plaintiff's argument that Judge Brochin erroneously construed the qualifying phrase "honor, trust or profit" as referring to all governmental employment.

Graziano v. MAYOR & TP. COMMITTEE OF MONTVILLE TP.

162 N.J. Super. 552 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 13, 1978

Clearly and literally, the bonds of the MUA are not and do not create a debt or obligation of the township. … Appellants' other contentions, such as that the contract lacks consideration, are clearly lacking in merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

State v. Simon

161 N.J. 416 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

If the jury’s verdict was based on a conclusion that defendant intended to cause the victim serious bodily injury, defendant’s Pennsylvania conviction clearly would have been admissible as a prior “murder” conviction. … A prior conviction for aggravated manslaughter does not qualify as a prior murder conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(a). See State v.

AGNITA HOIST v. ATHENA BITCOIN ATM

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 2024

June 29, 2020) (finding the Treasury Department is “clearly” an “arm[] of the state for immunity purposes”); May v. Irvington Police Dep’t, Civ. No. 15-764, 2016 WL 236212, at *2 (D.N.J. … In this case, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Treasury owed any duty to Plaintiff; breached a duty; or proximately caused any damages.!?