Case law

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Sealed Air Corp.

253 F.R.D. 300 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2008

It has not established that Grace and Sealed Air were adversaries. … Plaintiff further contends that DLJ fails to qualify as Sealed Air’s agent.

State v. Sewell

127 N.J. 133 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 17, 1992

That requires first a determination of whether the robbery statute clearly indicates a legislative intent to impose strict liability. Clearly it does not. … The State argued that the trial court’s jury instruction sufficed to establish a culpability requirement.

Dept. of Children & Fam. v. Ch

414 N.J. Super. 472 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 2010

"repeatedly with a paddle, multiple times and with sufficient force to cause marks could certainly qualify as abuse per N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b)[.]" … The Director properly considered the entire record presented to the ALJ before rejecting the recommendation and clearly articulated her reasons for doing so. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c). Affirmed.

State v. Garcia

255 N.J. Super. 459 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 1992

Acting upon this information, the officers established a surveillance point where they could observe both defendant and codefendant in front of 10 Clark Street and could also observe the freezer in the abandoned lot. … A trial judge is clearly qualified to make such a determination as he has an infinitely better feel for the case and the evidence presented.

Berg Agency v. Township of Maplewood

163 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1978

Corp. of N.Y., supra, the alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights of Berg Agency is seen to be sufficiently concrete to establish standing. See also, Walker v. Stanhope, 23 N.J. 657 (1957); Dome Realty Inc. v. … Thus, whereas potential buyers driving past a house for sale may easily forget a telephone number or not have the means to write it down, they are less likely to forget a name of the realtor, clearly visible and distinguishable

Fortenbaugh v. New Jersey Press

317 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 1999

IV Plaintiff contends that the motion judge erroneously exonerated defendants under the defense of the qualified privilege to fairly report on judicial proceedings. … The truth defense would excuse too much if a defendant could be immunized by the fact that its defamatory statement was first uttered by someone else, as the Court in Lawrence recognized.

Willard C. Beach Air Brush Co. v. General Motors Corp.

118 F. Supp. 242 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 1953

This, however, was refused by the Court, not only because the medical certificate submitted was insufficient to establish to the Court’s satisfaction that they were unable to attend and testify, as required, F.R.C.P. 26(d … the release in the corporate name, as well as his own, was not authorized by formal action of the board of directors, they being, in addition to himself, his wife and the stenographer of his lawyer, each holding only a qualifying

Service Armament Co. v. Hyland

70 N.J. 550 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1976

These guns must be possessed as curiosities or for their ornamental or historical value to qualify for the exception. … It does not evaluate senses or establish an enduring hierarchy of importance among them.

City Affairs Committee v. Board of Commissioners

132 N.J.L. 552 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 28, 1945

Can you imagine what this Legislature will do if given the ‘green light’ to reduce or exempt railroad property entirely from taxation, with the record which the Legislature has already established? … It is not phrased in precisely the same language and does not contain the same qualifying clause, but it does turn upon the provision that the municipality “shall have all the powers necessary for its government.”

Exxon Corp. v. Hunt

97 N.J. 526 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 1984

This appeal focuses on the taxing structures established by each of the foregoing Acts. … In performing this function the President "shall consider any priorities established by the States."

Wright v. L-3 Communications Corp.

227 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2002

Second, the parties do not dispute that Wright was qualified for the Director of Business Development for Space Products position that he held prior to his termination. … Third, Wright clearly suffered an adverse employment decision because he was involuntarily terminated on or about April 17, 2000. See Wright Certif. ¶ 5.

Meeker v. MEEKER

52 N.J. 59 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 3, 1968

In her appeal to this court plaintiff argues that application of the rule deprives her of due process, equal protection of the law, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed under the United States Constitution. … Since there clearly was a factual dispute as to defendant Meeker’s actual residence, that question should not have been resolved on conflicting or disputed affidavits, but only after a full hearing.

State v. Sharp

395 N.J. Super. 175 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 5, 2006

See Windmere Inc., supra, 105 N.J. at 378 , 522 A. 2d 405 (requiring reliability be "clearly established" in the criminal context); see also State v. Moore, supra, 188 N.J. at 206-07 , 902 A. 2d 1212 , State v. … The final question is whether Deputy Medlar's opinion satisfies N.J.R.E. 703, requiring that the method be "reasonably reliable" and "clearly established."

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. E.P.

196 N.J. 88 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 2008

The trial court found in this case that the Division established all four factors, warranting the termination of Emilia’s parental rights. B. … That statute then requires the Division to make efforts to identify and approve “a qualified family to adopt the child.” Ibid.

Reap v. Continental Casualty Co.

199 F.R.D. 536 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2001

Plaintiffs have typically depended upon two kinds of circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a policy, pattern, or practice of intentional discrimination: (1) statistical evidence aimed at establishing the defendant … First, there is no evidence that clerical staff are qualified for positions as officers, managers, and professionals.

Pomanowski v. Monmouth Cty. Bd. of Realtors

175 N.J. Super. 212 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1980

Besides the fact that the MCBR's jurisdictional territory is limited to the *216 county, it was clearly established that at least 85% of the listings processed by the MCMLS come from the MCBR territory. … Trombetta, qualified as a marketing expert, testified that, from a marketing standpoint, residential and commercial markets are of interest to different segments of the public with different needs.

Hernandez v. Bosco Preparatory High

322 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1999

The nature of the subsequent full hearing, if one is held, "clearly depends upon the circumstances of the particular case." Ibid. (citations omitted). In G.F. v. … The evidence in the record on appeal clearly shows that Don Bosco followed this procedure before dismissing plaintiff.

State v. Parkhurst

9 N.J.L. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1828

This I take to amount to a legislative determination, clearly declaring constitutional as well as legal rights and questions to be the proper subjects of judicial investigation and decision. … He was then content with it thus qualified; and the act of December 1, 1801, puts him in no worse condition.

Walker v. Pennsylvania-Reading S.S. Lines

142 N.J. Eq. 588 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Sep 1, 1948

There was no precedent for establishing the seniority rights of the employees of the parent companies in the new company. … The numerous appeals within the Brotherhood by Lodge No. 72 clearly show this.

State v. Anthony Sims, Jr. (085369) (Monmouth County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 16, 2022

would refuse to testify even if he were offered immunity. … According to the State, P.V. was clearly “unavailable” under N.J.R.E. 804(a)(2) because he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to testify despite an offer of immunity, and the requirements of N.J.R.E. 804(b