Case law

State v. Ferguson

255 N.J. Super. 530 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1992

(9); (3) defendant was particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b(1); (4) there were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify defendant's conduct, though failing to establish … This statutory immunity takes much of the risk out of the decision to testify at the transfer hearing. We can infer no voluntary waiver of the right to testify in this situation.

Matter of Ass'n of Trial Lawyers of Am.

228 N.J. Super. 180 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 13, 1988

First, an association "may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy." Warth v. … Clearly, the Products Liability Act does not regulate or purport to regulate professional associations of any sort whatsoever. Nor does it in any way affect the associational rights of ATLA's members.

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.”).

In Re Estate of Cory

98 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1967

Eq. 491 ( E. & A. 1929), and rejected the established line of authority. … The letter is now clearly admissible under Rules of Evidence 63 (32) and In re Cook, supra .

Martinez v. National Broadcasting Co.

877 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1994

In addition, there is evidence in the record that plaintiff repeatedly applied for positions for which he was qualified, and that plaintiff was rejected. … In addition, plaintiff clearly cannot maintain a hostile work environment action based on his mere assumption that the derogatory remarks made about him by Krebs were racial in character.

Thornton v. Thornton

67 N.J. Eq. 499 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 26, 1904

Having determined that the defendant is guilty of adultery, it follows that she is not entitled to the aid of this court, even if the charge she makes against her husband be established, and it is also well settled that if … Having thus qualified themselves as witnesses to the infidelity of the defendant, they left the hotel and returned home.

Central-Penn Nat. Bank v. N.J. Fidelity

117 N.J. Eq. 548 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 13, 1935

We are willing to let pass without challenge all he has so carefully composed and clearly and understandingly explained, except that we are not persuaded from any authoritative source that unearned premiums are or ever were … We are not informed of anything sacrosanct in insurance companies, nor has any reason been advanced for their immunization from this wholesome restriction upon corporate power, or why directors of moribund insurance companies

BUCHANAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 2025

Plaintiffs’ suit against the MVC was dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, and the only claims that remain are the First Amendment retaliation claims. ECF No. 21. B. … Clearly, “Rule 26 establishes a liberal discovery policy.” S.M. v. Tamaqua Area Sch. Dist., 2023 WL 3689607, at *1 (M.D. Pa. May 26, 2023). And federal courts have “discretion to manage discovery[.]” Resser v.

Borough of Glassboro v. Gloucester County Board

100 N.J. 134 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 10, 1985

In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the Act establishes the policy of New Jersey to provide a coordinated approach to solid waste disposal by establishing 22 solid waste management districts (consisting … Even if the effect could be characterized as more than incidental, the burden falling on Philadelphia would not be “clearly excessive.” Pike v.

Vc v. Mjb

163 N.J. 200 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 6, 2000

Without such a requirement, a paid nanny or babysitter could theoretically qualify for parental status. … Indeed, "[t]he denial of visitation rights is such an extraordinary proscription that it should be invoked only in those exceptional cases where it clearly and convincingly appears *555 that the granting of visitation will

Hoffman v. Asseenontv. Com, Inc.

404 N.J. Super. 415 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 2009

Included in small type at the bottom of the webpage and next to three asterisks, was the following: Initial retail purchase is required for qualifying bonus gift or offers, along with a separate shipping and handling charge … Plaintiff has failed to establish any damage or loss, regardless of any reliance.

Loigman v. Kimmelman

102 N.J. 98 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 25, 1986

In view of the fact that plaintiff alleged a common-law right of inspection that was not clearly asserted in the trial court, the Appellate Division concluded that the claim should be first decided by the trial judge. … On the other hand, when the public interest in confidentiality is greater, the citizen’s right of access is qualified. In Casey v.

ELEIWA

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

1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A to determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” O’Lone v.

Burr v. Duryee

4 F. Cas. 806 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · Sep 15, 1862

When it has established its value, it has to contend with infringers. … As to the patent for the process, there is no evidence of any infringement, and if there were, I must say that by testimony now for the first time produced, it is clearly established that Wells is not the first and original

Neptune TV & App. v. LITTON MICROWAVE, ETC.

190 N.J. Super. 153 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 7, 1983

The franchisee, in turn, acquires an instant public reputation based on system-wide promotion and the good will already established by other franchises. … That aspect of the arrangement — its licensing element — must be coupled with a community of interest between the parties as heretofore described before the abuse potential is triggered and in order for the arrangement to qualify

United States v. Caterini

801 F. Supp. 1407 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 1992

And if you want, even ten more I can get,” was not sufficient to establish “negotiation” for ten kilograms. … No money was ever produced and no finalized plan was ever established.

Ski Haus, Inc. v. Taxation Division Director

5 N.J. Tax 26 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 3, 1982

Defendant asserts that ski boots are clearly taxable under a reasonable reading of the regulations. … The short answer to this contention is that N.J.A.C. 18:24-6.5(a) clearly states that the list is not inclusive.

Moriarty v. Bradt

177 N.J. 84 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 2003

Our prior jurisprudence establishes clearly that the only state interest warranting the invocation of the State's parens patriae jurisdiction to overcome the presumption in favor of a parent's decision and to force grandparent … Although a grandparent could qualify as a psychological parent if he or she had functioned as a parent, that is not the case here.

New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. C.H.

428 N.J. Super. 40 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 23, 2012

After viewing the video, the court commented that “[i]t clearly show[ed] he has a fair amount of manual dexterity.” … The Court concluded the caregiver’s conduct clearly rose to the level of wanton or willful as she deliberately gave the child the entire bottle of pills without seeking clarification of the dosage even though she was unsure

D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio

144 N.J. Super. 200 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 1, 1976

At common law the father, unless unfit or otherwise disqualified, had the superior right to the custody of his minor children, a right only modestly qualified in 1860 by legislative fiat — see L. 1860, c. 437, which required … The main thrust of the anti-removal provision of N.J.S.A. 9:2-4 was clearly to prevent the defeat of an award of custody either already made or pending.