Case law

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

Steelman v. Wheaton

72 N.J. Eq. 626 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Mar 23, 1907

The complainant alleges that no part of the $1,200 was payable to the defendant until the executor had qualified and invested an amount sufficient to produce it, and that as the delay in making the investment was caused by … It seeans to me that the question is clearly presented in the bill of complaint, for an inspection of it shows that the right to relief rests upon the interpretation of the material and only real eleanent of dispute, which

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.”

Vulcan Pioneers v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CIV. SERVICE

625 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 1985

Finally, there is the public, which has a right to expect that responsible positions of leadership in the fire departments will be filled expeditiously by persons clearly qualified to supervise and perform the highly important … Nor does the court find the 1984 analysis of the State's test performed by its expert to establish the validity of such test.

FALCON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

when (i) the ‘specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the’ party seeking the [temporary restraining order] and (ii) … I find that plaintiff fails to make the specific factual showing required to establish immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.

THOMAS v. MUNOZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 2024

Defendants submit that Plaintiff’s failure to protect claims under § 1983 and the NJCRA fail for lack of evidence, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. Defs’ Brief at 6-21, 25-26, Dkt. 54-1. … Defendants have met their burden to establish that Plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him.

ALEXANDER v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2020

The Hearing Panel concluded that the MEC had established a sufficient basis, by a preponderance of the evidence, to suspend and terminate Dr. Alexander’s clinical privileges at HMH. Id. ¶ 232. … Super. at 291 (“Like the federal law, the New Jersey statute provides broad immunity for damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital’s peer review process.”).

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."

W.K. ex rel. W.K v. New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities

974 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 1997

To qualify as a proceeding which is judicial in nature, it must be established that the inquiry "investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist … Such a mandatory injunction clearly falls within the Younger analysis, and plaintiffs cite no case law to the contrary.

Trombetta v. Atlantic City

181 N.J. Super. 203 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 6, 1981

Issues must be fully developed, clearly defined and not merely speculative, conjectural or premature. … That is, whether the provision as applied is so clearly arbitrary or capricious that legislators, acting reasonably, could not have believed it to be necessary or appropriate for the public welfare.

First National Bank of Princeton v. United States

136 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1955

The complaint clearly sets forth the .alternative legal theories upon which the plaintiff seeks recovery. Throughout the complaint the allegation is consistently made that the contract between Prof. … To prevail under either one of its theories plaintiff must first establish that there was a sale of patent rights to Pro Phy Lae Tic.

Ballou v. State

148 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 1977

This case stands alone on that issue [2] ; the decision there clearly rested upon a finding of a "near blanket permanent exclusion of all women from a major sector of employment" (concurring opinion of Campbell, J. 415 F. … Davis, supra (qualifying examinations for positions on a police force which had an adverse effect on racial minorities); Keyes v.

Jersey City Redevelopment Agency v. Tug & Barge Urban Renewal Corp.

228 N.J. Super. 88 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1987

The court after careful consideration concludes that basic principles of real property law and court decisions clearly establish that the Legislature intended the former. … Such a restriction is commonly called an “estate on limitation” and is sometimes referred to as a “base fee”, a “qualified fee”, a “determinable fee”, a “fee simple defeasible” or a “fee simple determinable.”

Lyons, Et Ux v. City of Camden

52 N.J. 89 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 1968

The ultimate determination of a substandard condition followed application of extensive testing criteria established by the consultants to the critical or intermediate deficiencies found in each dwelling. … Clearly the basis upon which his deduction was made was insubstantial.

Kook v. American Sur. Co. of NY

88 N.J. Super. 43 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1965

It is not shown that he qualified as an expert for the purpose of adducing proofs concerning any special or trade-custom meaning or usage of any of the terms of the policy. … to be drawn therefrom amply demonstrate a "contrary intention" sufficient to neutralize the rebuttable presumption in favor of the partnership and to shift to plaintiffs the burden of going forward with their proofs to establish

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

State v. Perry

124 N.J. 128 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 20, 1991

respect to both and have found that a lesser form of homicide had been established in the evidence. … The record so examined clearly indicates a rational basis to support a valid claim of self-defense, which should have been *194 charged to the jury.

Parsell v. State

30 N.J.L. 530 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1863

Perhaps it was because, being better acquainted with the locality than strangers, they were better qualified to judge of' the necessity for the road, or it may have been because the laying of all roads imposed a burthen, … Clearly it would not.

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.