Case law

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE BOROUGH OF ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, ETC. (L-6119-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 2022

The Borough also sought immunity from being sued by third parties to comply with its fair-housing obligations. … All those facts combine to establish a clear and binding waiver by the Borough. 3. The Time Bar.

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.

Gosschalk v. Gosschalk

28 N.J. 73 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1958

A person whose capacity for domicile is limited by law to that of a temporary sojourner cannot qualify as a divorce suitor in our courts. … There is none to this day and he could not possibly qualify as a treaty trader or investor.

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).

GILLHAUS BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC. v. Lerner

78 N.J. 499 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 1979

That privilege, however, does not confer immunity from investigation in these circumstances. … A careful review of the "plea bargaining cases," however, demonstrates clearly that the two situations are not analogous.

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[.]’”

State v. Goodman

92 N.J. 43 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 10, 1983

Clearly defendant’s case was “pending” under N.J. S.A. 2C:l-lc(l) on the effective date of the Code. … As such it would not qualify as a “material element of the offense” (N.J.S.A. 2C:l-14i) and therefore would not render the federal offense different from the state offense in terms of essential proof. See Illinois v.

University of Medicine & Dentistry v. University of Medicine & Dentistry

223 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1988

of qualified faculty” and/or “to retain an outstanding individual in *326 a subject area in which replacement is difficult.” … Additionally, it determined negotiation was not preempted by State pension statutes in that by enacting N.J.S.A. 10:5-2.2 the Legislature “clearly and unequivocally” authorized institutions to continue (or not to continue

In re Dodge

90 N.J. Super. 198 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1966

In a case which is comparable to this one in the sense that a university’s claim to a gift was involved, the court held no gift had been made although the intent to make one in praesenti was clearly established. … It may establish or help to establish intent and will “insure deliberate and unequivocal conduct by the donor and the elimination of questionable or fraudulent claims against him.”

Chemos Corp. v. STATE DEP.

237 N.J. Super. 359 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 15, 1989

The legislative intent was clearly expressed in its finding ... that the generation, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes pose an inherent danger of exposing the citizens, property and natural … qualifies for a de minimus exemption from ECRA requirements, a sampling plan may be required. [12] We disregard reasons proffered in DEP's brief not of record. [13] For a detailed analysis of the effect of this classification

Brenman v. Demello

383 N.J. Super. 521 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 2006

Of course, to qualify as relevant, “the evidence [must have a tendency] to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove,” State v. … Clearly, this argument played a prominent role in the defense, especially in light of the polarity of medical views on causation, and was identical to that found objectionable in Davis.

Salvation Army v. Alexandria Township

2 N.J. Tax 292 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 2, 1981

The qualifying words, ‘used exclusively for charitable purposes,’ further point to the building as a place where the charitable use was to have a concrete existence. … In order for something to qualify as a building in the structural sense, it must have more substance than canvas walls and a canvas roof.

New Jersey Builders Ass'n v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

306 N.J. Super. 93 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 10, 1997

To do so would violate not only the terms of this department's MOU with the State Planning Commission hut the spirit of the State Planning Act, which states clearly that the State Plan is to be used to provide policy guidance … Thus, even if an administrative order satisfies all the Metromedia criteria, it need not go through the rule-making process if it qualifies as an intra-agency statement.

Central R.R. Co. v. Thayer-Martin

114 N.J.L. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 11, 1934

This knowledge enables me to differentiate the testimony of the experts and properly qualifies me to determine which of the testimony has greater value.” … The board, as stated in its opinion, clearly set forth the method employed and the various factors which it considered in reaching its conclusions.

CHARDONNAY-SINGLETON v. BROOKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 25, 2022

health and sought to fraudulently substitute Defendant Singleton as the beneficiary of the Insured’s Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance Policy (the “SGLI Policy”)—a low-cost life insurance offered to certain qualifying … It is well established that the United States enjoys sovereign immunity from suit. See FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284, 290–91 (2012).

Pagan v. Holder

741 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 5, 2010

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and … “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.” Id.

Eberhardt v. Perolin

48 N.J. Eq. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 1891

Thus the force of the rule, which establishes a prima fade meaning, is destroyed. Among these cases is that of Colton v. Colton, 127 U. … Besides, to use it as a connection with that which follows, requires a parenthetical qualification in advance of the matter qualified. Such was not the-testator’s style in writing.

Snyder v. Mekhjian

244 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1990

In addition, the court ruled that BCBC was not entitled either to charitable immunity pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 or to the $10,000 damages limitation of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8. … The physicians are clearly exempt under the holding and rationale of Newmark v. Gimbel's, Inc., 54 N.J. 585 , 258 A. 2d 697 (1969). AABB is not itself a supplier or tester of blood.