Case law

MERVILUS v. UNION COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 2021

In addition, Defendants maintain that Kaminskas is entitled to qualified immunity as to all claims against him and good faith immunity as to Count IV under the NJCRA. (Id. at 11–14). … App’x at 481 (finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s fabrication of evidence claim where the record revealed only inferences of negligence in the defendants’ investigation of a child

Democratic-Republican Organization v. Guadagno

900 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 11, 2012

In other words, Plaintiffs have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits that would allow a preliminary injunction to issue. … certainly favors denying injunctive relief where Plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional harm. .

PLAYCRAFTERS, ETC. v. Teaneck Tp. Bd. of Ed.

177 N.J. Super. 66 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 1981

action may have the effect of respecting religious views by scheduling extracurricular school activities on days and at times which would not conflict with most religious services, the ultimate "colorable secular design" clearly … religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. [ 343 U.S. at 313-314 , 72 S.Ct. at 684 , 96 L.Ed. at 962 ; emphasis supplied] The trial court also erred in holding that political opposition or community divisiveness can qualify

DnC America Banking Corp v. Topcroft, Inc. (In re Topcroft, Inc.)

136 B.R. 99 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 1991

In defining the term “clearly erroneous” the United States Supreme Court has stated that “[a] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left … This case is clearly inapposite.

Mercer v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

324 N.J. Super. 290 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1999

A trial judge may intervene in the trial during the introduction of evidence to qualify or expedite matters. … More specifically, the plaintiff must establish, (1) that the appearance of authority has been created by the conduct of the alleged principal and it cannot be established "alone and solely by proof of [conduct by] the supposed

DePalma v. Bldg. Insp. Underwriters

350 N.J. Super. 195 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2002

The legislative history of the Punitive Damages Act supports our interpretation of section c as establishing a class of cases that the Legislature intended to exempt from any cap on punitive damages—clearly not a class to … BIU does not contend DePalma's request for leave did not qualify under the Act, and we deem any such contention waived. See Pressler, Current N.J.

State v. Megargel

143 N.J. 484 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 27, 1996

The Lieutenant added that Lee was not qualified to carry *490 firearms. … The court noted that the Legislature established a more severe punishment for aggravated manslaughter than for other first-degree offenses.

Chemical Bank of New Jersey National Ass'n v. Bailey

296 N.J. Super. 515 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 21, 1997

Stewart Title also offered no proof to establish that the settlements were objectively reasonable. Stewart Title’s reliance on Tessmar v. … Furthermore, the language of Section 5 is clear and unambiguous and establishes the division of loss and expenses between the parties.

Elmer Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy (083379)(Hudson County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 13, 2021

Second, defendant argued that it relied in good faith on certain determinations that it qualified as a “trucking industry employer” and could therefore invoke the defense set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.2. … If the statute’s plain language leads to a clearly understood result, the judicial inquiry is complete. Ibid.; Felix v.

D'AGOSTINO v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

133 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 1993

Switzerland clearly is more interested than New Jersey in protecting job stability and preserving a right to refuse to violate Swiss public policy. [Id. at 321, 605 A.2d 252 .] … Under South Carolina law both the general contractor and subcontractor are immune from tort liability, while in New Jersey only the subcontractor is *539 immune from liability.

Dial Block Co. v. Mastro Masonry

374 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2004

We conclude, as did the motion judge, that a sensible construction of the statute establishes that it is not. … One of the goals of the amendment "was to clearly define the risk assumed by the surety issuing the bond."

In re the Contest of November 8, 2005 General Election for the Office of Mayor

388 N.J. Super. 663 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 2006

Branning, 9 N.J.L.J. 110 (Cir.Ct.1886), the Clee court noted, In that case, which has been followed ever since, the court clearly indicated that it is the duty of a contestant, alleging the reception of illegal votes, or … cannot establish to the extent possible under the circumstances for whom the illegal vote was cast.

Central Railroad v. Pennsylvania Railroad

31 N.J. Eq. 475 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1879

But the fact that its property is under the charge of this court does not in anywise secure to the company protection against lawful competition in its business, or secure for its property immunity against liability to lawful … The legislature clearly did not intend to confine the advantage of the law to those who were citizens of or dwellers in this state. The language of the law is, “ any number of persons, not less than seven, &c.”

NJ STATE COLLEGE LOCALS v. State

251 N.J. Super. 577 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 19, 1991

PERC recognized as much when it concluded that only qualified preemption applied to the disputed regulations. PERC found that the presumption of preemption was not rebutted. … The record clearly reflects that Council was given an opportunity to express its views on the regulations before they were submitted to the Board for final adoption.

Medoff v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

464 F. Supp. 158 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1978

Abzug, the amendment’s primary sponsor in the House, explicitly stated on the floor that § 403g was one of the statutes intended to qualify under the new Exemption 3. … Such materials are clearly within the protective scope of 5 U.S.C. § 403g. See generally Baker v. CIA, supra.

KERKHOFF v. EZRICARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2024

NJPLA’s Immunity Provision Although product sellers are subject to liability under the NJPLA, the Act includes an immunity provision “to rescue persons it categorized as ‘product sellers … Thus, the Court rejects EzriCare’s claim of immunity at this juncture. IV.

Massieu v. Reno

915 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 1996

Near the end of the hearings, the government produced evidence which “clearly established]” that 800,000 of the alleged 2.5 million pesos embezzled were not, in fact, proceeds of the alleged embezzlement. … Clearly it does not.

Sgro v. Getty Petroleum Corp.

854 F. Supp. 1164 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 1994

The expressed intent of the parties and the circumstances at the time of the Agreement clearly establish that the equipment was to be treated as “trade fixtures” and thus removable by Getty at termination of the Agreement … Roe, 282 N.Y. 525 , 27 N.E.2d 35, 38-39 (1940) (reasonable to qualify delivery upon proof of ownership).

Prime Accounting Department v. Township of Carney's Point

212 N.J. 493 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2013

Bocceli clearly constituted an aggrieved taxpayer within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 54:3-21, and accordingly, had standing to file the tax appeal. … Later submissions to the Tax Court would establish that it was Zubair, not Aslam, who visited the tax assessor's office in April 2008.

Li Fu v. Hong Fu

160 N.J. 108 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1999

That plaintiffs’ action against Freedom River is precluded by virtue of an owner’s immunity for vicarious liability under New Jersey law is not contested. … Because the mandatory insurance law does not abrogate the owner’s common-law immunity from vicarious liability for permissive use, see Schimek v.