Case law

Toll Bros., Inc. v. BD. OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, CTY. OF BURLINGTON

194 N.J. 223 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 31, 2008

Toll Brothers has abandoned its 870,000 square-foot office space design for Phase 2 and instead currently has municipal approval to build 122 age-qualified residential units. … Accordingly, if the resolution establishing the conditions remains in effect, the developer’s agreement can be enforced.

LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION v. UNITED STATES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 2023

Privileges and Immunities Clause. … But even reaching the merits, this claim quite clearly lacks any basis in law. Despite recent efforts to expand the right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment does not extend to civil actions, Turner v.

Dolecky v. Borough of Riverton

223 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1987

Our criminal laws would be subject to capricious treatment if they could be qualified by the disparate legislative actions of various municipalities. … for aesthetic purposes (permissible under Miller) or otherwise clearly subordinate and not the opposite.

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.

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.

Alpha-Bella VI, Inc. v. Clinton Township

14 N.J. Tax 597 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 5, 1995

The county board hearing was clearly an administrative proceeding. County tax boards are administrative agencies that “ ‘exercise gwasi-judicial jurisdiction’ ” in hearing tax appeals. *593 Union City Assocs. v. … The burden of establishing a change in use so as to subject land to rollback taxes is on the assessor. Miele v. Jackson Tp., 11 N.J.Tax 97, 99 (App.Div.1989).

Dept. of Transportation v. PSC Resources, Inc.

159 N.J. Super. 154 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 1978

The act thus provides for governmental immunity except in those very specific areas in which the statute permits suit. Fuller, supra at 426 . … Second, the action seeks to enforce a section of the Water Quality Improvement Act, which is clearly designed to minimize pollution or impairment of the environment.

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.

Williams v. Red Bank Board of Education

508 F. Supp. 989 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 1981

S.A. 52:14F-5(/) provides that: Administrative law judges shall be attorneys-at-law of this State, or any persons who are not attorneys-at-law, but who, in the judgment of the Governor or the director are qualified in the … Clearly, however, plaintiff is in no way constrained to take this risky course.

Charney v. City of Wildwood

732 F. Supp. 2d 448 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2010

“Generally, immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception.” Fluehr v. City of Cape May, 159 N.J. 532 , 732 A.2d 1035, 1039-40 (1999). … The hole in the instant case, measuring one and one-half inch deep, and one and one-quarter inch wide at its largest point, is the kind of minor defect that does not qualify as a dangerous condition under the Tort Claims

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).

Pernas v. Parkview Towers Management Corp.

502 F. Supp. 1099 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 10, 1980

However, a review of that case reveals that it dealt with the dismissal of a student from high school and the Supreme Court’s consideration of a teacher’s immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . … A compensation award will be *1104 appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action

Schear v. City of Elizabeth

41 N.J. 321 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1964

He is an official of the municipality and therefore qualified for appointment to the planning board. … This is clearly evidenced by its inclusion in the statute of the general mandate that: “No member of tbe planning board shall be permitted to act on any matter in which he has, either directly or indirectly, any personal

State v. Farmer

48 N.J. 145 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 21, 1966

It was said that such disclosure, although not required constitutionally, clearly promoted the quest for truth. State v. Johnson, 28 N. J. 133 (1958). … Actu *180 ally no such question was put specifically, nor did the cold appellate record reveal clearly that such was the intention of the United States attorney.

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.

DESSOURCES v. MANNING

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

App’x at 182 (finding arresting and presenting evidence to a grand jury are “clearly law enforcement functions”). … has expressly waived its immunity.

Swetland v. Swetland

100 N.J. Eq. 196 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 16, 1926

and qualified successors. 25. … That case clearly held that a gift to an executor is a complete testamentary disposition.

Katobimar Realty Co. v. Webster

20 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 12, 1955

the public need; there cannot be unnecessary and excessive restrictions upon the use of private property or the pursuit of useful activities; a substantial intrusion upon the right infringes essential individual liberties immune … are detrimental to and inconsistent with the orderly development of the zone, for limited industrial purposes,” but in August 1954 the mayor and council “discovered that, through inadvertence,” the ordinance “failed to clearly

State v. Wright

196 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 19, 1984

The novelty of New Jersey's death-penalty statute is that the only defendants that will be permitted to plead guilty are those who qualify under the sentencing guidelines in the act. … The wisdom and social desirability of plea negotiations and plea agreements are now firmly established and accepted, especially in this age of ever-growing criminal dockets and backlogs.

D'ALLESSANDRO v. United States

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

Here, Chief Judge Wolfson’s orders were “clearly issued in a judicial rather than administrative capacity,” notwithstanding Plaintiff’s assertion to the contrary, with respect to the exclusions of time under … Accordingly, New Jersey state agencies “established in the Executive Branch of State Government” are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, “regardless of the relief sought,” unless an exception applies