Case law

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

State v. McDonald

211 N.J. 4 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2012

It claims that the School clearly qualifies as “school property used for school purposes” under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-l(e)(3)(a) notwithstanding its status as a parochial school, because the statute is not limited to facilities … Although driving while intoxicated does not necessarily establish the element of recklessness, “a reasonable jury may use a defendant’s drunken state as evidence of his reckless driving.” State v.

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.

State of New Jersey v. Jorge L. Gomez

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2025

A-0364-23 7 Moreover, the court reasoned although the punishment may be different, the statutes clearly indicate that distribution and possession with the intent to distribute are … Although a lone fact rarely establishes probable cause, "a successful 'controlled [drug] buy "typically will be persuasive evidence in establishing probable cause."'" Ibid. (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 392).

United States v. Rabin

986 F. Supp. 887 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 24, 1997

Lau-rice, however, was granted immunity and revealed the true nature of his agreement with Defendant. PSR § 54-56. B. … Root, 12 F.3d 1116 (D.C.Cir.1994) (FCC approval process significantly disrupted when agency dismissed possibly qualified applicants based on forged documents).

Borough of Oceanport v. Hughes

186 N.J. Super. 109 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 1982

If otherwise qualified, N.J.S.A. 19:31—5, those persons are eligible voters in Oceanport and in the Shore Regional School District *114 election. Marks v. New Hanover Tp., 124 N.J.Super. 504 (App.Div.1973). … Specifically do plaintiffs argue that by any standards the use of 1980 census figures to determine populations but 1970 census figures to set the excluded inhabitants is clearly irrational.

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.

Ciesla v. New Jersey Department of Health

429 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 4, 2012

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. … Hence, to the extent that prior decisions of this court have stated or presumed that the OPRA exemption of deliberative materials is qualified, we part company with those decisions.

Uaw, Region 9 of the Uaw v. New Jersey Governor Philip Murphy

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 26, 2026

However, that federal "rational basis" approach is qualified by what are known as "tiered" levels of scrutiny. … "A statute must clearly and irremediably violate[ ] the ban on special legislation to be invalidated." City of Jersey City v. Farmer, 329 N.J. Super. 27, 38 (App. Div.)

Coppola v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Coppola)

596 B.R. 140 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 2018

Our Client's paystubs clearly show gross income of $2,993.05 per individual bi-monthly [sic, bi-weekly] pay period for our Client alone, or a monthly gross income of approximately $6,484.94. … However, where an owner or assignee has established an evaluation criteria that sets an order ranking for evaluation of loan modification options (commonly known as a waterfall) and a borrower has qualified for a particular

Kounelis v. Sherrer

396 F. Supp. 2d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 2005

It is well-established that Plaintiff has a First Amendment right to file grievances with the Court. … Clearly, as newly asserted defendants, Sagebiel and Cannon also would not suffer any prejudice.

Matthew J. Barrick, Jr. v. State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction

218 N.J. 247 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2014

governing the agency; (2) whether the evidence in the record substantially supports the findings on which the agency’s actions were premised; and (3) “whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly … The State and RMD urge this Court to establish a bright- line rule that would declare as moot appeals of bid awards where an unsuccessful bidder fails to seek a stay when pursuing appellate review of the bid award.

Peper v. Princeton University Bd. of Trustees

151 N.J. Super. 15 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 1977

She was qualified for the promotion. Her request for promotion was denied. Men having no greater qualifications were subsequently promoted. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … In this posture, and in view of plaintiff's establishment of a prima facie case, it then became incumbent upon the University to come forward with an explanation at least suggestive that the admitted disparate treatment was

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, NEWARK LODGE NO. 12 VS. CITY OF NEWARK (C-000177-16, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

459 N.J. Super. 458 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 2019

A qualified interpreter will be obtained from an official registry of interpreters or another reliable source. … Instead, for preemption purposes, the Legislature's intent to occupy the field "must appear clearly." Ibid. (emphasis added).

Brechman v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.

182 N.J. Super. 259 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 16, 1981

By "independent" the court presumably was referring to those cases not controlled by the statute, where the proposition stated clearly applies. … As Kufta makes clear, even the payment of the full contract price is not sufficient to qualify under the doctrine. Such action is compensable by damages. Id. at 228 .

Sabol v. Board of Education

510 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 1981

Without more, it cannot be said that these statements provide clear evidence of Congressional intent to establish a broad ban on employment discrimination against the handicapped. … These cases clearly indicate that teacher discrimination is equivalent to discrimination against students only where broad policies of hiring and assignment are involved, not where a solitary case of employment discrimination

State v. David Bueso(074261)

225 N.J. 193 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 2016

N.J.R.E. 601 provides that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception. … “[O]ur ‘system of justice . . . has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception[.]’”

Konop v. Rosen

425 N.J. Super. 391 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 2012

However, the notation was clearly hearsay. Flores acknowledged that the consultation report was based upon what others told him. … Whether plaintiff "was moving too much" during the colonoscopy was clearly relevant and not subject to any condition precedent.

In Re Opinion 39 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising

197 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 17, 2008

document [was] designed to be circulated amongst clients and potential clients, in order to create the impression that the attorneys designated ‘Super Lawyers,’ and particularly those featured in lead articles, are more qualified … Clearly, mere consumer unfamiliarity with a privately[ ]conferred honor or designation does not establish that advertising such honor or designation is actually or inherently misleading so long as the honor or designation

DICKSTEIN 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.