Case law

Student Public Interest Research Group v. Byrne

86 N.J. 592 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1981

The question to be answered is simply whether the legislator was qualified for appointment at the time the appointment was made. Obviously Mrs. Curran was so qualified. … The ban clearly does not apply to an increase in compensation which is proposed subsequent to the appointment. [ 42 Op. Att'y Gen. 35 (1968).]

Cardell, Inc. v. Township of Madison

105 N.J. Super. 594 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1969

As noted earlier herein, it is undisputed that the municipal council adopted a resolution on October 11, 1968, declaring Manzo to be the lowest qualified bidder; and that on October 31 another resolution was adopted rescinding … Whether the power can now be reserved and exercised by a municipality has not been clearly and definitely determined.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Newark v. Ho-Ho-Kus Borough

42 N.J. 556 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1964

Likewise school districts were established throughout the State (see, e. g., N. J. S. … Board of Adjustment, supra, the borough’s action was clearly arbitrary. Under the circumstances, that decision should be made by us now.

MATRIX DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. CITY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 2021

Some of the requirements for a qualifying PLA include: A. … Newark argues Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not demonstrate “how the Ordinance fails the two-part test for analyzing a law under the Privileges and Immunities Clause” established in United Bldg. & Const.

Hipsley v. Hipsley

161 N.J. Super. 119 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1978

We now hold that where equitable distribution is sought pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, an earlier separation agreement will be a bar to such relief only if, and to the extent that, it can qualify as a property settlement, … The record in this matter clearly indicates that the parties never considered the husband's *124 pension plan in reaching the terms of the agreement.

Oxford House, Inc. v. Township of Cherry Hill

799 F. Supp. 450 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 1992

First of all, the final clause excluding current users clearly indicates an intent that at least some prior users be covered by the definition. … Defendant appears to argue that the reason for the denial was the fact that the residents of Oxford House do not have the requisite “permanency and stability” to qualify as a family unit under the ordinance.

GOFF-COHEN v. COHEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 2022

Plaintiff does not clearly spell out the nature of either restraining order. Plaintiff also seeks to raise a claim against Sylvia Brietowich, a private attorney. (/d. at 5.) Ms. … “To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C.

ILLESCAS INGA v. TSOUKARIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 16, 2020

No explanation is given as to how, why, or to what extent Petitioner’s immune system has been compromised by his brief bout of respiratory illness. … Apr. 7, 2020) (denying request for TRO by habeas petitioner as he could not establish deliberate indifference to his medical needs).

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

577 F. Supp. 1029 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 1982

As EEOC insists, it is not a “pension plan” as that term has been defined by both WPDA and ERISA, but as EEOC overlooks, it is clearly a “welfare plan” as defined in both statutes. … Evans, 431 U.S. 553 , 97 S.Ct. 1885 , 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977) established that § 703(h) on its face immunizes all bona fide seniority systems, with no distinction between those adopted before or after its effective date.

State v. Purnell

394 N.J. Super. 28 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2007

The judge found that the State carried its burden of establishing defendant's competency, and defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced. … Counsel qualified his affirmative response "[w]ithout waiving any of the arguments [he] made in the past leading up to this trial."

Albright v. Sussex County Lake & Park Commission

68 N.J.L. 523 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 10, 1902

The section proceeds to provide that “such submission shall be made and the vote hereinafter provided for taken at the next election, whether general, municipal or special, wherein the people of the county qualified to vote … But, without discussing this question, we are clearly of the opinion that section 18 has not the effect of absolutely requiring that the submission to a vote shall be at the next general election after the adoption of the

State v. Chubb Corp.

239 N.J. Super. 257 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1989

This clearly applies to category 1 items in the matter at bar, but does not relate to the other two categories where there are no recorded last known addresses. State v. … Evid.R. 56(2) provides that a qualified expert witness may offer opinion testimony "as to matters requiring scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge if such testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand

HEATROK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 2026

Correspondence Plaintiff filed with his complaint, however, more clearly explains why Plaintiff was not scheduled to leave the RHU until late May. … App’x 112, 114 (3d Cir. 2017) (“it is well-established that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, custody classification, or housing assignment”).

State v. Neff

67 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 1961

think of defendant's unwillingness to face up to the consequence of his crime, and the argument that he should not be allowed to benefit from his own wrongdoing, justice will not be served by drafting such an exception to a clearly … The prosecutor made no attempt to qualify the statement as admissible, and it was promptly *220 stricken at defense counsel's request, with the above-quoted instruction to the jury.

BEASLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 2025

WHEREAS, Plaintiff “bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating the facts that establish personal jurisdiction.” … Id.; and WHEREAS, the Court may deny a plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery where it is “clearly frivolous.” Toys “R” Us, Inc. v.

Casseus v. ELIZABETH GENERAL MED.

287 N.J. Super. 396 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1996

In that case the Court held that the plaintiff must carry the initial burden of proof to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Id., 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 , 36 L.Ed. 2d at 677 . … Clearly, an inability to perform the job is a legitimate reason under LAD to discharge (or to fail to promote, or to demote) an employee. See Fowle v.

State v. Burgos

200 N.J. Super. 6 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 1985

The trial court conducted an Evid.R. 8 hearing as to Abril's qualifications to be a witness and found him qualified. … Nevertheless, the trial court's decision on Abril's competency is clearly supported by the record. See State in the Interest of R.R., 79 N.J. 97, 113 (1979).

State v. Simpson

365 N.J. Super. 444 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 22, 2003

Rather, in each case, the corporate surety, supported by seventeen verbatim briefs, challenges the constitutionality of R. 3:26-6 and its companion rules, R. 1:13 — 3(d) and (e), which provide, respectively, for the establishment … 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.

Sepulveda v. United States

69 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 1999

Petitioner has the burden of establishing any claim asserted in the Petition. See United States v. Abbott, 975 F.Supp. 703, 705 (E.D.Pa.1997). … The Third Circuit has clearly stated its preference that such claims generally be addressed in the first instance by the district court under a § 2255 motion, rather than on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Greenberg

376 N.J. Super. 623 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 10, 2004

He did not operate a diagnostic clinic as part of his practice nor was he qualified to do so. 2. … This court is clearly and convincingly satisfied that Dr. Greenberg and his corporations knowingly violated N.J.S.A. 17:33A-4(a)(1), (2), and (3).