Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clark v. Wichman

72 N.J. Super. 486 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1962

Div. 1960): "In an action for negligence or malpractice against a physician the plaintiff ordinarily is required to establish that the defendant's treatment or care fell below the standard established and recognized by the … Eisenstodt, supra , which case is clearly distinguishable from the facts sub judice.

United States v. Artim

944 F. Supp. 363 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 1996

Discussion Section 3553(b) of Title 18 permits a sentencing judge to depart from the ranges established by the Sentencing Guidelines when the judge finds “an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree … The cases cited by the Defendant where a downward departure was permitted based upon the “extraordinary” mental and emotional condition of a defendant are clearly distinguishable. For example, in United States v.

Worden v. Mercer County Board of Elections

61 N.J. 325 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 1972

Registration tests that make it more difficult for non-native students to qualify than for other students or citizens with similar intentions should be prohibited. … All this was in violation of the legal principles approvingly expressed in this opinion and clearly called for broad judicial relief.

Jersey City Gas Co. v. Dwight

29 N.J. Eq. 242 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1878

The truth of this charge, as to one of the subscriptions, seems to be conclusively established. *245 Mr. … My conclusion is, that it is clearly shown the defendants have attempted to acquire corporate life and power by a feigned compliance with the law, and their effort must therefore be adjudged abortive.

In Re Six Month Extension of NJAC

372 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2004

When COAH grants substantive certification, the municipality receives various benefits, including effective immunity from exclusionary zoning litigation. … In order to qualify a municipality for consideration, its motion was required: to comply with established COAH motion practice, and to be served on all objectors or litigants that had participated in first-round substantive

Tornatore v. Selective Insurance Co. of America

302 N.J. Super. 244 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1997

The vehicle then fled the scene (thus qualifying it as a so-called “phantom” vehicle for the purposes of uninsured motorist coverage). … Indeed, our public policy favoring those who in good faith render emergency care has been strong enough to command a statutory immunity under the Good Samaritan Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-1; L. 1987, c. 296, § l. 4 We conclude

In re Broking

381 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 2005

in the use of the handgun he is permitted to carry in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection j. of this section and pays the actual costs associated with … Clearly, a verification of the date the officer “retired” cannot be provided until such time as the officer’s application for retirement has been approved.

CORDERO v. NWACHUKWU

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 2024

The statute's “guiding principle” is “that immunity from tort liability is the general rule and liability is the exception.” D.D. v. Univ. of Med. & Dentistry of N.J., 213 N.J. 130, 134 (2013) (quoting Coyne v. … Div. 2010) (determining the plaintiff's injuries and memory loss sustained in a motor vehicle accident that required weeks of hospitalization qualified as an extraordinary circumstance); Maher v.

Condit v. Director of Motor Vehicles

98 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1967

If there had been only one possible tortfeasor and plaintiff had been mistaken as to his identity, plaintiff would clearly not have been barred against the Eund. … Gassert the Supreme Court held: “It should be emphasized, however, that to prevent the imposition of any possible fraud or abuse upon the Fund, any action instituted against a third person which results in the type of qualifying

R & R Marketing, L.L.C. v. Jim Beam Brands Co.

383 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 2006

Jim Beam argued vigorously that the testimony and prior administrative decisions established that nationally advertised has a well known meaning. … Even product placement in movies, under certain circumstances, may qualify.

GLAESENER v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2023

Defendants also contend that claims arising before June 15, 2018 are time barred and that any request for punitive damages must fail because Defendants are hybrid entities immune from punitive damages. … To establish pretext, Plaintiff argues that Ms. Haines did not engage in protected activity, had less seniority and experience, and was a less qualified candidate.

Paterson Publishing Co. v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.

21 N.J. 460 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 1956

A fair reading of all of the testimony establishes beyond question that Paterson Publishing Company was an integral part of an operation which encompassed the three corporate entities (Atlantic Television Corporation, Service … McMahon, a qualified representative of the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau, testified that he could see no reason for anyone wanting flash information of the type being disseminated except “bookmakers and past posters

Levin v. Great Western Sugar Company

274 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1967

This is clearly not the case. There can be no doubt that a suit alleging conspiracy to violate the Securities Exchange Act comes within the jurisdictional boundaries set out by section 78aa. … Moving defendant banks’ motion to dismiss is denied, as qualified by this opinion. 1 . 15 U.S.C. § 78aa provides, in its relevant parts: The district courts of the United States * * * shall have exclusive jurisdiction of

Terminal Const. v. Sewerage Auth.

244 N.J. Super. 537 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 7, 1990

Terminal Construction was determined to be the lowest qualified bidder for the sludge facility at approximately the same time. … In reaching our conclusion, we are mindful of the important public policies advanced by the safeguards established under the APA.

INGRAM v. MENDOZA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 2022

. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … clearly was provided with an opportunity to dispute them.

JOSEPH KOCH VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-3022-15, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 2020

A-5570-17T4 19 immune, "courts should employ an analysis that first asks, 'whether an immunity applies and if not, should liability attach.'" Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. … The burden of proof rests on the public entity to establish immunity. Caicedo, 439 N.J. Super. at 623 (quoting Kain, 436 N.J. Super. at 473).