Case law

MARINACCIO v. UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 20, 2022

Oct. 24, 2012) (noting that the United States “cannot be liable for the purported violation of rights established under the New Jersey Constitution, as the[y] are similarly immune from such claims.”); Abulkhair v. … This lone statement clearly is conclusory.

McAndrews & Forbes Co. v. Camden National Bank

87 N.J.L. 231 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 1915

This should perhaps be qualified by saying that when the very language of the deed containing the warranty is such as to put the purchaser on notice of such an encumbrance, he should be deemed to have assented to its exception … The reservation of a private right of way in the second deed brings this out clearly as to that deed. In the first, as we have seen, there is nothing except the phrase “extended south line of Jefferson street.”

CAPPS v. DIXON

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 21, 2021

Dixon responds that Capps has failed to identify a clearly established right that he purportedly violated. … The Court is not a factfinder, and it cannot evaluate whether Capps had a clearly established right to be free from Dixon’s takedown until the parties address what actually happened

Paton v. La Prade

469 F. Supp. 773 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 1978

The record clearly demonstrates 6 that Paton’s letter was not opened; that merely her name and address were copied from the outside of the envelope. … The transcription of Paton’s return address might qualify under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. See, U. S. v. Solis, 536 F.2d 880, 881 (9th Cir. 1976) and cases cited therein. 8 . See, Canaday v. U.

American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Sidamon-Eristoff

755 F. Supp. 2d 556 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2011

essential and historical attribute that belongs to the State as a sovereign, and thus, the state officials are immune from this suit. … As such, Defendants are not immune from suit. II.

In the Matter of the Competitive Solar Incentive

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2024

The qualifiers, "until," "after," and "unless" relate to preconditions for the waiver process itself, which does not apply to the county limit. … N.J.S.A. 48:3-119(f) employs the "unpreserved" qualifier for the county limit only, whereas the Statewide limit does not.

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.

In re Registrant G.B.

147 N.J. 62 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 11, 1996

However, the State’s evidence is not immunized from challenge simply because the prosecutor can rely on hearsay and non-record facts. … Clearly, a registrant also can raise challenges to the “variable” factors that go into determining the Scale score.

Reese Cadillac Corp. v. Glens Falls Insur. Co.

59 N.J. Super. 118 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1960

The court went on to say: "So the qualifying word `conclusive,' as used in the statute, supra, is not to be regarded in a sense that imports to it a quality that will not tolerate challenge or contradiction; but rather in … To be sure, the fact that the shortages were caused by the dishonesty of plaintiff's employee or employees may be established by circumstantial evidence, but the evidence to establish that fact must be of such a nature that

American Fire & Casualty Co. v. New Jersey Division of Taxation

375 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2005

Further, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, is inapplicable, because corporations are not held to be “persons” to which that clause applies. See Hemphill v. … In this context, our long-established jurisprudence requires us to defer to a legislature’s judgment if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

ARCHIE v. HAMILTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL COURT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2022

He argues the second exception is likewise inapplicable because he had jurisdiction and because his actions during these proceedings were clearly judicial actions. (Id.) … It is well established that a “[pro se] complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Montgomery v.

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.

DeBlasio v. Groff (In Re Groff)

301 B.R. 644 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 2003

The debtor’s guilty plea qualifies as “actual litigation”, and her conviction represents a valid and final judgment. … The question becomes whether the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-22 clearly indicate a legislative intent to impose strict liability against the defendant, or whether the statute requires the defendant to “know” that if she

EVANGELISTA v. THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CAMDEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2024

Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006) (citations omitted). 10 Defendants’ Motion is generally premised on a defense of qualified immunity. … A government official is entitled to qualified immunity where either (1) a constitutional right is not violated; or (2) the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.

State v. Berezansky

386 N.J. Super. 84 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 2006

The State clearly failed here to meet the standards established in Simbara for admission of a drug test certificate. … IV Defendant argues that it was error to admit the lab certificate into evidence when the State failed to establish the chain of custody.

O'Brien Cogeneration, Inc. v. Ascoa

361 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 2003

Rather, the agreement stated that all qualifying events had to have been "unforeseeable" and "beyond the reasonable control of and without the fault or negligence of [plaintiff]." … In fact, the contract language leads us to conclude that it was not possible to determine whether a particular fire was a force majeure until the cause of the catastrophe was established.

BAQUERO v. MENDOZA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 2019

The court found that paternity was previously established by a paternity affidavit and therefore was not an issue in the case. (Id.). Separately, Mr. … App’x 146, 149 (3d Cir. 2013) (New Jersey county court was “clearly a part of the state of New Jersey,” so “both the court itself and its employees in their official capacities were unconsenting state entities entitled

Morgan v. Markerdowne Corp.

976 F. Supp. 301 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 1997

Lenders receive two types of federal subsidy payments on loans made to qualified borrowers. … The FTC Holder Rule, as first promulgated in 1975, was clearly intended to apply to school loans.

Commerce Bancorp v. Interarch, Inc.

417 N.J. Super. 329 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 2010

Clause (a) establishes the qualifications for a corporate agent to obtain indemnity in any proceeding in which he or she is involved by reason of his or her agency. … Bd. of Review, 35 N.J. 601, 606 , 174 A. 2d 481 (1961) ("When the Legislature has clearly defined a term, the courts are bound by that definition."); Nebinger v. Md. Cas.

Pennsylvania Railroad v. Department of Public Utilities

14 N.J. 411 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 1, 1954

Under Pennsylvania’s practice a man must familiarize himself with the physical characteristics of the road before he qualifies as engineman and to keep qualified he must make a trip over the territory once a year. … Similarly, one railroad requires engineers in road passenger service, absent for 90 days or more, to make a qualifying run under the supervision of a road foreman; another requires a qualifying run after an absence of 120