Case law

State v. Weeks

107 N.J. 396 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1987

Hence, the instruction did not clearly require the jury to find that defendant had shared the purpose to commit a robbery with a weapon. … But see NJ.S.A. 2C:ll-3a(3) qualifying the felony murder rule in New Jersey.

State v. Warriner

322 N.J. Super. 401 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1999

Type simply gives notice that a firearm with that basic design qualifies as an assault weapon. As such, it gives adequate notice. … The record before us and the arguments raised fail to persuasively establish the unconstitutionality claimed. Consequently, we reverse the order dismissing the indictment.

Fidelity Land Dev. Corp. v. RIEDER & SONS BUILDING AND DEV. CO.

151 N.J. Super. 502 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 1977

An addendum to the mortgage note limited plaintiff's recourse, in the event of a default in its payment, to the mortgaged land itself, immunizing the principals of the defendant mortgagor from any liability thereon. … However, we reject the view that imposes upon the beneficiary the burden of establishing justification for enforcement of the clause. * * * Instead, we would burden the trustor with the responsibility * * * A lender has the

Regan v. Regan

246 N.J. Super. 473 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1990

After Francis Regan's death, his surviving spouse qualified as administratrix of the estate. In December 1989, she commenced an action in the Chancery Division for partition. … Clearly, Virginia Regan gave Francis Regan the right to mortgage or encumber the property in any manner and for any amount he saw fit. Mr.

Morrison v. Kimmelman

650 F. Supp. 801 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1986

Concerns with judicial immunity, comity, and independence would thus arise regardless of the circumstances which might have brought the testimony of the trier of fact into court. … Judges are clearly precluded from testifying in trials over which they preside. Fed.R.Evid. 605. 2 .

Chao v. Local 54, Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union

166 F. Supp. 2d 109 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 9, 2001

In other words, proof of a violation establishes a prima facie case that the outcome of the election may have been affected and shifts the burden to the defendant to show that the established violation did not affect the … Because the statute clearly and unambiguously requires that notice be sent to last known address of all union members, these undisputed figures conclusively establish a violation of the election notice provisions of the LMRDA

In Re Pleasonton

45 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 14, 1957

the caution to be exercised in considering the application of this or any other canon of will construction: "With the desire to reduce to a minimum the perplexity and uncertainty inseparable from the subject, courts have established … Torrey, 70 N.J.L. 672 ( E. & A. 1904), there is no canon demanding avoidance of a clearly expressed disposition not inconsistent with the over-all plan of the testament because intestacy, not necessarily actually foreseen

Howell v. Ashmore

9 N.J. Eq. 82 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1852

The whole statement of the case by the bill shows, I think clearly, that the suit was commenced after the plaintiff's title accrued, but before he had his deed recorded. … The defendant must answer, either admitting, denying or qualifying all the circumstances upon which it is contended that if the defendant will speak, notice, though denied, will appear.”

Township of Chester v. Panicucci

62 N.J. 94 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1973

Proof of that occurrence would, of course, establish possession of a loaded gun, the act both the ordinance and the statute forbid. … A. 23 :4 — 16 as it existed when the ordinance was adopted except for the omission of the qualifying phrase “for the purpose of hunting, taking or killing any bird or animal.”

Executors of Shinn v. Executors of Paterson

17 N.J.L. 322 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1839

the accounts are balanced between the parties; the jury shall find for the defendant, and, “ unless the plaintiff or plaintiffs prosecute as executors or administrators,” the defendant shall recover his costs, which is clearly … Dig. 506, qualifies the rule contained in the former statute.

State v. McGuire

419 N.J. Super. 88 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 2011

He had previously been qualified twice to testify in courts as an expert *432 in plastic bag manufacturing and identification. … The testimony was clearly not admissible under N.J.R.E. 406 as evidence of Bill's habit or routine of leaving wives.

State of New Jersey v. Ivonne Saavedra

433 N.J. Super. 501 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 24, 2013

Quinlan did not establish such a bright-line rule as defendant suggests. … 14 A-1449-12T4 rather than a public employee like defendant, contended that her employer discriminated against her when it promoted a less qualified

Flynn v. Megaro

112 N.J. Super. 148 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1970

The complaint' sought to enjoin examination C1530 and to replace all temporary clerks with qualified persons from the C880X “knowledge of typing” list. … The record clearly indicates that typing is a reasonable requirement for a court clerk, and we concur in the Commission’s finding.

K.A.F. v. D.L.M.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2014

stated that establishing psychological parenthood is "not an easy task[.]" V.C., supra, 163 N.J. at 230. … While the cause of action brought by D.M. is not "immune to the summary judgment procedure," A.F. v. D.L.P., 339 N.J. Super. 312, 320 (App. Div. 2001), it is nonetheless clear that D.M.

State v. Halsey

218 N.J. Super. 149 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 1987

Moreover, Manley, supra, though clearly outlining the procedure to be followed in the conduct of voir dire, did not foreclose supplementary questioning by counsel entirely, but left control over its scope and content to the … Accordingly, we will solicit the recommendation of our Criminal Practice Committee as to the establishment by Court Rule of a procedure governing the exercise of peremptory challenges.

Cesare v. Cesare

154 N.J. 394 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1998

, 48 Rutgers L.Rev. 1139, 1140 (1996) (“No class, religion or race is immune.”). The domestic violence epidemic has also hit New Jersey. … In those cases, the Appellate Division found that the defendants’ actions did not qualify as harassment.

Den v. Trustees of Presbyterian Church of Lawrence

20 N.J.L. 551 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 15, 1845

His great object most evidently was, to devote a large portion of that property, for which he considered himself so eminently indebted to a kind Providence, to establish and perpetuate among his neighbors, the preaching of … What may be the character or effect of the qualified restriction in this will, upon an alienation of the premises, is entirely unimportant at this time, since there has been no alienation made.

New York Guardian Mortgagee Corp. v. Davis

193 N.J. Super. 443 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 1, 1984

It should be noted that N.J.S.A. 14A: 1-3, which sets forth the scope of the corporation act, confirms the applicability of the act to foreign corporations established under federal law. … not fall within the statutory definition of "bank” or "savings bank," N.J.S.A. 17:9A-1(1)(a) to (e) and (13)(a) to (e), nor does it fall within the definition of "banking institution” N.J.S.A. 17:9A-1(2); it also does not qualify

JACKSON v. SEIFRIED

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2024

To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, the plaintiff must establish that “(1) he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, … Koch9 for the proposition that “poor impulse control” is not a qualifying disability under Title II. (ECF No. 472 at 17.)

Charlie Brown of Chatham, Inc. v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR TOWNSHIP OF CHATHAM

202 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1985

No residential uses are permitted in the business district zone except those in connection with qualified conditional uses permitted under the ordinance. … In the present matter the Zoning Board found that special reasons had not been established.