Case law

Decapua v. Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc.

313 N.J. Super. 110 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1998

In a test established in McDonnell Douglas v. … Addressing his claim, Judge Mikva stated: Apparently, we have never had occasion to state clearly that the second type of “background circumstance” may create a prima facie ease by itself.

Feldman v. Hunterdon Radiological Associates

187 N.J. 228 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 2006

Plaintiff clearly satisfies part of that definition to the extent that she performed work as a radiologist for HRA in return for an annual salary, thus rendering services for remuneration. … Since Clackamas , a number of federal courts have applied its test to determine whether a shareholder or co-owner of a business entity qualified as an “employee” under federal anti-discrimination or benefit laws.

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

855 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2012

Finally, the prosecution history of the patents clearly indicates that the patentees defined the controlled release formulation with reference to the fluctuation index. See, e.g. … Rather, whether a compound qualifies as an active moiety depends on what compound is administered as the active ingredient.”

Peterson v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

32 N.J. Super. 23 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 3, 1954

American Paper Co., supra , the former Court of Errors and Appeals clearly sets forth the elements necessary to establish an accord and satisfaction ( 83 N.J.L. 709 ): "Now, of course, the rule of law is that where a claim … The party seeking to settle for a less sum than is claimed to be due must, by his words or conduct when making the offer, clearly inform the other of what is sought and expected.

Tomasi v. Tp. of Wayne

126 N.J. Super. 169 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1973

Super. 304 (Law Div. 1973), the court declared invalid an ordinance regulating the opening and closing hours of all retail business establishments. … The State's concern for public safety in barber establishments is reflected in the barbering statute. A person is not qualified to receive a certificate of registration unless he is "of good moral and temperate habits".

State v. Hauptmann

115 N.J.L. 412 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 9, 1935

It was not that Kelly had not been qualified as an expert. … There was much more evidence tending to establish his guilt.

Airwork Service Division v. Director, Division of Taxation

2 N.J. Tax 329 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 27, 1981

Indeed, all changes in words and phrasing in a statute adopted from another state are deemed deliberately made with the purpose of limiting, qualifying or enlarging the adopted rule. Martin v. … It is a well established rule of statutory *347 construction that a change of language in a statute implies a purposeful alteration in substance of the law. Nagy v.

Lippincott v. Wikoff

54 N.J. Eq. 107 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1895

The present act of 1870 was then passed, and, in its broad and comprehensive form, this section seems' to me clearly to reach a proceeding in the orphans court or before the surrogate for the probate of this will, and to … Justice Chitty qualify, to some extent, the broad doctrine laid down in Alexander v.

State v. K.S. (072608)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 8, 2015

The Legislature also codified the PTI Program by enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12, which largely adopted the procedures and guidelines established by Rule 3:28. … To overturn a prosecutor’s decision to exclude a defendant from the PTI Program, the defendant must clearly and convincingly show that the decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion.

MARK J. MOLZ VS. THERESA D. MOLZ N/K/A THERESA D. MITCHELL (FM-11-0626-12, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 2020

The burden of establishing that an asset or any portion thereof is immune from distribution rests on the party claiming its immunity. Pacifico v. Pacifico, 190 N.J. 258, 269 (2007). … Plaintiff simply failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that any premarital or corporate assets were immune from distribution. Pacifico, 190 N.J. at 269.

MCCLINE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079 (3d Cir. 1971)); and WHEREAS a litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit,” Hurst v. Shalk, 659 F. … App'x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016), and “bears the burden ‘to provide the Court with the financial information it needs to make a determination as to whether [they] qualify for IFP status.” Gray v.

Ware v. Prudential Ins. Co.

220 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 1987

and establish objectives. … Manpower Responsibilities Function The VP, RM is responsible for staffing all Districts with sufficient numbers of qualified Management personnel.

Eberhart v. LG Electronics USA, Inc.

188 F. Supp. 3d 401 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 2016

Nor does he allege prices for comparable televisions without the deceptive advertising or with clearly expressed, accurate refresh rates. … This matter clearly does not fall within this exception.

JW Field Co., Inc. v. Franklin Tp.

206 N.J. Super. 165 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 7, 1985

Judge Skillman found that the report contains no explanation of how the 82% figure was established. … The three surrogates are clearly reflective of substandardness.

State v. Woodworth

121 N.J.L. 78 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 31, 1938

The last point is clearly untenable. … Slat. 1937, 2:195-19), unless it clearly appears that it is the product of mistake, passion, prejudice, or partiality.

State v. Thomas

114 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1971

New Jersey's constitutional guarantee, although narrow in its phraseology, was not meant to restrict the common law protection, but rather to insure against the contention that a defendant may be entitled to immunity from … Maryland, supra , is whether the established rule of federal law embodied in the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. We do not hesitate to hold that it is." Ashe v.

Perth Amboy Gen. Hosp. v. BD. OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF CTY. OF MIDDLESEX

158 N.J. Super. 556 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 11, 1978

If the county adjuster, who administers the program for the county, is satisfied the care qualifies for credit, it is figured in. … What about the statutory language, "Payment * * * shall be at rates established by the commissioner?"

In Re the Burlington County Board of Chosen Freeholders for an Investigation of the Office of Sheriff

99 N.J. 90 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 1985

The prima facie case had been established. … The Department of the Public Advocate is established under N.J.S.A. 52:27E-2.

Macedonian Orthodox Church v. Planning Board

269 N.J. Super. 562 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1994

John’s homeless shelter on the church’s property, qualified as an accessory use “customarily incident[al] to [a church’s] principal use.” Id. at 417, 479 A.2d 935 . … Clearly, there was a substantial increase in the proposed building size from that of the approved 1978 building and other significant changes.

United States Ex Rel. Haskins v. Omega Institute, Inc.

11 F. Supp. 2d 555 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 2, 1998

Plaintiff has merely established that Marra was the teacher of the course and prepared the course description. … fail to qualify under Rule 41(a)(1).