Case law

Kazanjian v. Atlas Novelty Co.

34 N.J. Super. 362 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 1955

Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, 2 N.J. 136, 152 (1949). … Div. 1950), plaintiff's 40 years of experience as a rug merchant should serve to qualify him. Leider v. Pitock, 15 N.J. Super. 592 ( App. Div. 1951).

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,

Anchor Law Firm, Pllc v. the State of New Jersey

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 9, 2025

Fundamentally, Paragraph 3 of Section 2 establishes that the Supreme Court "has jurisdiction over the legal profession." Williams & Chen, at 166. … The Court has also directed that persons who file ethics complaints against attorneys have immunity for those actions. In re Hearing on Immunity of Ethics Complainants, 96 N.J. 669, 679 (1984).

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.

Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Executors of Young

90 N.J. Eq. 27 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jan 9, 1919

Young, the defendant’s testator, acquired the whole of this issue of stock ($1,000,000 par value) with-perhaps the exception of a few qualifying shares with full notice of the over-valuation and accompanying fraud. … My view was that such a suit in equity is not based on any contractual' obligation of the stockholders but upon an equity of the creditors, involving the theory of a trust fund and of fraud, matters clearly of equitable cognizance

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

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.

Landau v. Township of Teaneck

231 N.J. Super. 586 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1989

"the essence of the conditional use concept is that every site within the district which is able to meet the objective standards for suitability is entitled to qualify for that use." 199 N.J. Super. at 477-8 . … The selling of public lands by the Township of Teaneck is clearly proprietary and binding if regular and reasonable.

Ellen English v. Lince Group, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 2026

They've been clearly, clearly upheld. After defendant and the Township presented their cases, all parties presented summations and the trial court charged the jury. … "Under the TCA, immunity is the rule and liability is the exception." Posey v. Bordentown Sewerage Auth., 171 N.J. 172, 181 (2002).

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.

S.M. v. A.W.

281 N.J. Super. 63 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 1995

She acted friendly and appeared to enjoy the activities taking place in the retail establishment. … The maternal grandmother qualified as such an interested person and had standing to bring this action to have her granddaughter returned to her.

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

McKay v. Horn

529 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 1981

Whether a state does or does not qualify to receive the benefits of the FUTA program, its employers must still pay FUTA’s payroll tax. … Plaintiffs clearly have standing to attack both the federal and state amendments.

Southern Burl. Cty. NAACP v. Tp. of Mt. Laurel

119 N.J. Super. 164 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 1, 1972

This would result in an expense for a single-family home that would not qualify for federal subsidized programs *168 within the reach of the resident plaintiffs herein neglected. … They argue there is a desperate need for affirmative municipal action within parameters established by the court. In Hawkins v.

State v. Grant

196 N.J. Super. 470 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 15, 1984

The trial court agreed with the municipal court judge that defendant qualified as a repeat offender and imposed essentially the same penalty. This appeal followed. … Indeed, the evidence is clearly to the contrary.

ISKOS. v. Planning Bd. of Tp. of Livingston

51 N.J. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 5, 1968

Barnabas decided to establish a modern medical center elsewhere. … Moreover, in terms of the original grant of 1958, it qualifies also as an appurtenance.

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.

United States v. Harris

317 F. Supp. 2d 542 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 2004

This does not establish a valid waiver of the fundamental Sixth Amendment right to counsel. … Outterbridge was clearly advised of this minimal step he could take to assert his suppression rights, he refused to do so.

In the Matter of the New Jersey Solar Transition Pursuant to P.L. 2018, C. 17 – Application for Certification of Solar Facility, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 29, 2025

A-0424-24 6  We are bound to apply clearly defined statutory terms. State v. S.B., 230 N.J. 62, 68 (2017). … Guided by well-established principles of statutory construction and our decision in In re Implementation of L. 2012, c. 24 (Millenium), 443 N.J. Super. 73 (App.

HUNTER v. SCHULLERY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2025

Defendant also asserts that, even if the claim were properly pled, she is entitled to qualified immunity, rendering any amendment futile. Id. at 10-14. … As Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, the Court focuses on that argument and declines to address qualified immunity.