Case law

Township of West Windsor v. Public Employment Relations Commission

78 N.J. 98 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1978

This concept is clearly the core meaning of the term “grievances” as used in Art. I, para. 19. … A. 34:13A-5.3, the Legislature added the following sentence: Notwithstanding any procedures for the resolution of disputes, controversies or grievances established by any other statute, grievance' procedures established by

Banco Popular North America v. Gandi

360 N.J. Super. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2003

It was clearly and succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in Printing Mart v. Sharp Electronics, 116 N.J. 739 , 563 A. 2d 31 (1989). … We are in no position to determine whether plaintiff can establish its claims by competent, credible evidence.

Peer v. City of Newark

71 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1961

The evidence, contrary to the requests, clearly established that city's program and the F.B.I. program were not coextensive. If charged, the requests would have been misleading and confusing. See Ristan v. … In the instant case, the evidence clearly established that Linda would never be restored to sound health; she would always be helpless and dependent upon her parents or others for assistance.

HOPKINS v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2025

Exposure alone does not establish a constitutional violation[.]” Graham v. Aviles, No. 22–cv– 5760, 2022 WL 16949131, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing Hope v. … App’x at 166 (“We therefore agree with the [d]istrict [c]ourt’s assessment that amendment of the complaint would be futile because the statute of limitations clearly had expired when [plaintiff] filed this complaint.”)

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.

Grey v. Greenville & Hudson Railway Co.

59 N.J. Eq. 372 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Apr 17, 1900

to its exercise on preliminary injunction: It is suggested in the brief of defendant’s counsel, but not argued, that the restraint of the illegal exercise of the powers of a public company, even on final hearing, is not clearly … Upon the other hand, it is contended by defendant’s counsel that the recognized general rule in reference to the construction of such provisos is that they are to be taken as qualifying or limiting only the general powers

WASHINGTON v. MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2021

Here, Plaintiff clearly challenges the validity of a conviction by asserting a conspiracy against him to pursue charges despite Defendants’ knowledge of his innocence. … The final filing is another addendum preemptively asserting that the judge presiding over his criminal matter is not entitled to qualified immunity because the judge knowingly conspired with the other defendants to deny

RODRIGUEZ v. SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 2024

However, the Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Somerset County Sheriff’s Office, as the Sheriff’s Office does not qualify as a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Brandon v. … A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing: (1) liability based on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional violation; or (2) personal liability

Alves v. Rosenberg

400 N.J. Super. 553 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 13, 2008

In this regard, the trial court's "`interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference.'" Maglies v. … Clearly the phrase in issue is qualified by the rule's prefatory language that the proffered deposition testimony be "admissible under the rules of evidence[,]" R. 4:16-1; Pressler, supra, comment 1 on R. 4:16-1, or as otherwise

MAJERSKA v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 12, 2021

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 to … A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

In re Estate of Gabrellian

372 N.J. Super. 432 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 20, 2004

The Writing signed by his father clearly stated, “Sell all holdings immediately.” Indeed, Mark’s verified complaint filed in the first action recites in pertinent part: 14. … The doctrine clearly applies to two successive, contested probate actions that were unquestionably intertwined.

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.

Cattafi v. O'Neill (In Re Nuisance Corp.)

17 B.R. 80 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 23, 1981

There can be no question that a trustee qualifies as a “party in interest” and, therefore, permitted to object. See 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 502.01 (15th ed. 1979). … The fact that officers and directors and controlling shareholders owe a fiduciary duty to their corporation and its minority shareholders, is well established under New Jersey law; see Eliasberg v.

Elizabeth v. STATE, DEPT. OF ENV. PROTECT

198 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 1984

"The burden is not upon the Commissioner to establish that the requisite facts exist; [r]ather, the burden is on petitioners to establish that they do not." Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle, 105 N.J. Super. at 114 . … They argue that because this provision of the Solid Waste Utility Control Act deals with the granting of franchise areas by the BPU for which, appellants maintain, qualifying hearings are customarily of a trial-type nature

Jersey City United Against the New Ward Map v. Jersey City Ward Commission

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2024

Redistricting Comm'n (In re Establishment of Cong. … While communities of interest and neighborhoods are clearly important, the Legislature did not include those considerations in the MW Law. Second, the role of a court in reviewing compactness is limited.

State v. Rountree

388 N.J. Super. 190 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 21, 2006

Thus in his case, as in Franklin , the jury verdict itself did not establish the required Graves Act element. … And in a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Long found the distinction the majority drew between convictions on the same day not qualifying, and convictions on consecutive days qualifying,

In Re Hudson County Board of Taxation

128 N.J.L. 574 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 1942

Allegiance of the employees of the board run to those duly qualified under the circumstances recited. … Clearly, the court has the power to compel the clerk of the board to recognize the authority of those who hold the state’s warrant of office.

State v. Hoffman

399 N.J. Super. 207 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 31, 2008

A defendant seeking to overcome rejection from PTI must "clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision constitutes a patent and gross abuse of discretion." State v. … Prosecutors are guided by a number of different principles when determining whether a defendant qualifies for PTI.

Errington v. Mansfield Township Board of Education

100 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 1968

They are clearly set forth in his comprehensive opinion. In substance, he held that Mrs. Harsha had composed the letter by dint of her own effort and had caused it to be published without authorization from the board. … The proofs fail to establish that Mrs. Harsha was ever “informally authorized” by a majority of the board members to send the letter in question.

Lewis v. American Cyanamid Co.

155 N.J. 544 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1998

In essence, United seeks immunity from liability resulting from its decision to use a more flammable propellant than one that was a suspected teratogen and ozone-depleter. … The dissent contends that the subsequent ban immunizes defendants from liability for not using P-22 at a time when it was not banned.