Case law

Millville Mutual Marine & Fire Insurance v. Mechanics' & Workingmen's Building & Loan Ass'n

43 N.J.L. 652 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1881

other hand (although this is not the ordinary commercial sense) a person is sometimes said to be a special agent, whose authority, although it extends to do acts generally in a particular business or employment, is yet qualified … That such an agent may assent to alienation and waive contions on behalf of an insurance company is established by numerous authorities. Woodbury Savings Bank v. Charter Oak Co., 31 Conn. 517 ; Dayton Ins. Co. v.

MURPHY v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC

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

For the reasons set forth below, this Court will follow the precedent established by those courts that have found the FCRA to waive sovereign immunity and deny Education’s Motion under Rule 12(b)(1). … sovereign immunity.

Ohoud Establishment for Trade & Contracts v. Tri-State Contracting & Trading Corp.

523 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 1981

If there is an indication that the goods themselves were defective at the time of delivery to the carrier, then the carrier is statutorily immune from liability. … Such a demarcation has been established by both the state law within this district and the accumulated discussions on the limitations of consequential commercial damages. As the court in Rickards v.

Red Bank Regional Education Ass'n v. Red Bank Regional High School Board of Education

78 N.J. 122 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1978

To be given effect, any such waiver must be clearly and unmistakably established, and contractual language alleged to constitute a waiver will not be read expansively. United Steelworkers v. … Employee rights with respect to the presentation of grievances to their employer clearly qualify as terms and conditions of their employment. We have held that the relevant sentence of N. J. S.

Higgins v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas

282 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1995

That statement was clearly erroneous and prejudicial to plaintiff. … A fair reading of the record as a whole establishes ample evidence to support Dr.

Pascale v. Pascale

140 N.J. 583 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 1995

Painter, 65 N.J. 196 , 320 A.2d 484 (1974), the guiding principle of Painter remains: Property “clearly qualifies for distribution” when it is “attributable to the expenditure of effort by either spouse” during marriage. … To refute such a presumption, the party seeking exclusion of the asset must bear “ ‘the burden of establishing such immunity [from equitable distribution] as to any particular asset.’ ” Landwehr v.

Anfuso v. Seeley

243 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1990

But this principle must be qualified where land has a unique character and a statewide policy designates what uses are appropriate for such land. … "Unique suitability" is a well-established category of special reasons. Ward v. Scott, 16 N.J. 16, 22 , 105 A. 2d 851 (1954).

Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Co.

1 N.J. 304 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 1949

In later New Jersey cases oral or written declarations of a decedent, not otherwise qualifying under one of the then recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule, have been admitted in evidence where the intent or purpose with … L. 495 (E. & A. 1878), a murder case, where it was necessary for the prosecution to establish the presence of the victim with the accused. It was there held, in an opinion by Mr.

Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories

257 N.J. Super. 163 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 15, 1992

The quoted instruction, however, clearly addresses the question of the reasonableness of Lederle's conduct and places the burden of proof on Lederle. … In our view, he established the requisites for admissibility under Evidence Rule 63(13). See State v. Matulewicz, 101 N.J. 27, 29 , 499 A. 2d 1363 (1985).

Katchen v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co.

457 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2019

Div. 2005), we noted the well-established principal that clear language in the policy should be interpreted as written. Id. at 538 , 887 A.2d 166 (citing Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. … Such qualifying provisions should be construed in a common sense and logical fashion in accordance with the language used. [ 271 N.J. Super. 409 , 419-20, 638 A.2d 924 (App. Div. 1994) (citing Kampf v.

Tanis v. Township of Hampton

306 N.J. Super. 588 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 1997

event, the occasional flights in and out of the property since 1970 were insufficient to establish a nonconforming use. … Durrett, supra, upholding a finding that “an airstrip was not customarily associated with residential use” and stating “[a] rare association of uses cannot qualify as customary, though the uses need not be joined in a majority

New Jersey Hospital Ass'n v. United States

23 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 1998

This clearly is not the ease in the matter before this Court. … Such a result is clearly inappropriate, and the Court finds that this step of the analysis is not satisfied.

Lasser v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

146 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 13, 2001

Jurisdiction is established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 . … But even Walsh had previously conceded that a greater than 50% chance of a heart attack would qualify as a disability.

Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc.

177 N.J. Super. 279 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 1981

Moreover, we reject defendant's argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish a standard of care as to the adequacy of the measures taken to protect its customers. … In any event, the question of proximate cause here was clearly for the jury. See Rappaport v. Nichols, supra 31 N.J. at 203 ; Martin v. Bengue, Inc., 25 N.J. 359, 374 (1957); Vadurro v.

Frances Parker, Etc. v. John W. Poole, M.D.

440 N.J. Super. 7 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 2015

Furthermore, it is well established that a treating doctor testifying as a fact witness is permitted to testify about the cause of the patient's disease or injury, because causation is an essential part of diagnosis and … It is therefore immaterial whether these other utterances would have been independently receivable as the testimony of a qualified witness. . . .

State v. Devlin

234 N.J. Super. 545 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1989

Clearly, the evidence relied upon by the State to establish the recklessness required to prove death by auto went far beyond the mere proof that defendant was intoxicated, which was only a component of defendant's recklessness … The judge must first determine a tentative sentence that comports with the strictures and guidelines that the Code establishes for a third-degree crime.

MICHAEL MORRIS VS. JOSEPH DEMARCO (L-2666-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2019

When qualified local residents cannot be found to fill positions, the Ordinance provides for an exception: e. Specific Positions and Employment Exemption. … "Dismissal is the appropriate remedy where the pleading does not establish a colorable claim and discovery would not develop one." Ibid.

ISRAEL BLUM VS. TOWNSHIP OF LAKEWOOD (L-0538-17, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2020

Their pleadings established they had no constitutionally protected property interest in the initial rental voucher. … In view of our disposition of plaintiffs' arguments, we need not address Monmouth County PHA's qualified immunity claim. Affirmed.

City of Plainfield v. DEPT. OF HEALTH

412 N.J. Super. 466 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 2010

As we previously noted, Muhlenberg was established in Plainfield in 1877. … It admitted, though, that "[i]ndigent minority and other medically underserved patients have clearly relied on Muhlenberg ... for healthcare services. ...

HORIZON BLUE CROSS v. State

425 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2012

To qualify as an HSC, a corporation must be "organized, without capital stock and not for profit, for the purpose of (1) establishing, maintaining and operating a nonprofit health service plan and (2) supplying services in … However, it is undisputed that plaintiff was the only HSC in the state and the only such carrier to qualify for the 1/8th Rule.