Case law

Ewell v. NBA Properties, Inc.

94 F. Supp. 3d 612 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2015

“[Ojbviously, clearly, there would be some — a lot of questions if I showed up beat up in NBA Properties media trailer.” (Id. at 206). … Was Hewitt qualified for the job? Was the job given to a less qualified person of another race? Ewell offers nothing from which discrimination can be inferred.

Capella v. Board of Education

145 N.J. Super. 209 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 1976

Clearly, appellants are not engaged in a “full-time” occupation when they work for three hours on two nights a week. … In addition to the factors found to be significant in Schulz, we also noted the fact that the teacher there involved was not paid at the rate of pay established by the salary guide for a regular teacher but rather at a daily

State v. David Bass(072669)

224 N.J. 285 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 7, 2016

In this case, the trial court properly declined to give the “intruder” charge because the evidence clearly established that defendant voluntarily invited Shabazz and Sinclair into his motel room. … established that defendant invited Shabazz and Sinclair into his motel room.

Gallagher v. Asphalt Co. of America

67 N.J. Eq. 441 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 16, 1904

But it does not follow from that that what was done was to establish a stockholders’ suit or a creditors’ suit. … Well, this is the situation as I understand it, although I cannot recollect the facts or state them as clearly as I could last week. This is the situation as I recall the affidavits.

In Re First Interregional Equity Corp.

227 B.R. 358 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 1998

Goldin was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee (the Chapter 11 Trustee) and duly qualified. … The proposed Class Plaintiffs have clearly established the proposed class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable.

Thomas v. County of Camden

386 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2006

Clearly, then, "any State governmental agency is a place of public accommodation for purposes of inclusion under the umbrella of the LAD ...." Ibid. … As such, plaintiff fails to satisfy even Sibley's more expansive view of employment to establish her sexual harassment employment discrimination claim under the LAD.

Camarco v. City of Orange

111 N.J. Super. 400 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 1970

Plaintiff clearly has standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance. … He is more qualified to question the ordinance than most other citizens of Orange in that he was arrested under the former ordinance which dealt with the same action of loitering.

Hollister v. Fiedler

17 N.J. 239 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 1955

The judgment of the Superior Court determined that the particular share of stock “was originally held by Jean Hollister to qualify her as a director” of the corporation, “and was held by her in behalf of William C. … Super. 203 (1954), ruled that the plaintiff had not “clearly and conclusively established his right to the judicially enforced acquisition of the stock without the payment of any compensation whatever”; that the “shares of

First Real Estate Inv. Trust v. Hasbrouck Heights

190 N.J. Super. 85 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 1983

It clearly failed to sustain that burden. … There is nothing in the record to indicate that plaintiff ever applied for "hardship" relief. [2] See Internal Revenue Code provisions 26 U.S.C.A. § 856 et seq. and Federal Tax Regulations § 1.856-1 et seq., applicable to qualified

Hunt v. Chambers

21 N.J.L. 620 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1845

He must not only have property absolute or qualified, and the right of possession at the time of the commencement of the action, but be must have the exclusive right of possession. … Hence, as clearly appears from the books, one joint-tenant or tenant in common cannot alone maintain replevin even against a stranger, much loss can he maintain such action against a co-tenant. Shaw C. J., Barnes v.

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.

Favell v. Hernandez

261 N.J. Super. 348 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 30, 1992

That is, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case as to any of the statutorily categorized injuries under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a. In Oswin v. … range-of-motion tests are based only on patient's pain responses, they ordinarily will not suffice unless the restricted mobility is verified by physical examination and observation. ( 129 N.J. at 319 , 609 A. 2d 415 ). *357 Clearly

ABC BAIL BONDS, INC. VS. GLENN A. GRANT (C-000075-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2019

But that constitutional right is clearly qualified by, among other limitations, compliance with the conditions of bail not only by the principal but also by the surety. … go beyond the term when it finds "exceptional circumstances" have been established.

Malone v. Midlantic Bank, N.A.

334 N.J. Super. 238 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 9, 1999

Such a lease, if bona fide, would clearly represent an interest in land, Taylor v. Borgfeld, supra. … Movants’ application to establish their right to continue in possession and/or to redeem is therefore denied. Plaintiffs request for possession will be granted and a Judgment will be *251 entered to that effect.

New Jersey Ass'n of School Business Officials, Inc. v. Hamilton Township

22 N.J. Tax 467 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 8, 2005

For the following reasons, I conclude that the property is not qualified for exemption. … The record clearly establishes that appellant has no activities in the fields of protective legislation or medical economics. [Id. at 365-66, 221 A.2d 15 ].

ORTIZ v. DEJOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 2024

. § 1915, the Court may excuse a litigant from prepayment of fees when the litigant “establish[es] that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. … Because Plaintiff sufficiently establishes his inability to pay, the Court will GRANT his IFP application. See D.E. 1-1.

Marx v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp.

380 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2005

In both Burger King cases discussed above, the Courts of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's factual determination that the employer had not established the percentage requirement for lower paid assistant managers "as not clearly … its lower-paid, long test, assistant managers was not clearly erroneous).

BD. OF TRUSTEES OF TCHRS'. PENSION v. La Tronica

81 N.J. Super. 461 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1963

Deficits do arise in the Fund's reserves where abnormal salary adjustments are made just prior to or at the time a member qualifies for benefit, since the actuarial salary projections for contributions do not make allowance … Clearly the actions of the local boards and the subsequent demands of the respondents have a something-for-nothing color to them which *471 should be deplored.

PARKS v. CFG HEALTH SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 2020

The Court assumes that Plaintiff’s intestinal infection qualifies as a serious medical need for screening purposes only. … “To state a claim for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that there was an arrest; and (2) that the arrest was made without probable cause.”