Case law

Ferguson v. Rippel

23 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1952

Rippel and the National State Bank of Newark, are the duly qualified executors of the estate. … . *135 The intervention of the court was sought because of a controversy arising out of the 35th article of the will under which the foundation is established.

Matter of Sound Radio, Inc.

93 B.R. 849 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 1988

Sarco, in the person of Diaz, clearly has the appropriate expertise and ability to operate the station. His background in the radio business qualifies him and his assertions of experience were unchallenged. … On the other hand, the creditors, except for Robinson and LeBow, have clearly expressed their preference for the Sarco plan.

Golaine v. Cardinale

142 N.J. Super. 385 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1976

the holder of a public office during his term, nevertheless, and based upon the general theory that an office holder accepts his office on the implied condition of his faithful execution of its obligations, it is a well established … And see, N.J.S.A. 2A:81-17.2a1 (every public employee removable for failure to testify on a grant of use immunity). And cf.

GRAY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 8, 2024

It is well-established that “the phrase ‘service, program, or activity’ under Title II and the phrase “‘program or activity’” under Section 504 are “extremely broad in scope and include[] anything a public entity does.” … Durham, 82 F.4th at 228-29; however, sovereign immunity does not bar suit against state entities under the Rehabilitation Act.

Windsor Card Shops, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.

957 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 1997

Both individuals and corporations can qualify as consumers if they fit the definition. See id., 515 A.2d at 248 . … Even if Windsor were to qualify as a franchise, see N.J.S.A. 56:10-3(a), plaintiffs fail to satisfy all of the NJFPA requirements.

State v. Elysee

159 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1978

She was fully qualified with respect to knowledge of Creole, French and English, and conducted the translation in Creole which admittedly is the language spoken and understood by defendant. … The State has borne the burden cast upon it to establish the voluntariness of the statement, the communication of Miranda warnings and the understanding waiver by defendant.

Kopitnikoff v. Lowenstein Bros., Inc.

24 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 10, 1953

Ruoff, asserted that Kopitnikoff "clearly did not comprehend what was going on" and that his condition would not improve but "will retrogress." … However, the deputy director decided that such *440 an accident had been established by other proof in the case.

NAHAS v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2023

immunity. … “Because the [FTCA] constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act’s established procedures have been strictly construed.” Livera v.

Ric-Cic Co. v. Bassinder

252 N.J. Super. 334 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 1991

Bassinder's interest, we hold that the language of perpetual grant and the lump sum compensation receivable in exchange imply that he received something which clearly qualifies as an "interest in ... land" within the meaning … Any other arguments on appeal which have not been expressly disposed of are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Bentley v. Long Dock Co.

14 N.J. Eq. 480 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1862

If the truth of the objection be established, the report as of course would be set aside. Why should such an objection be made the matter of exceptions to be set down for hearing and formally argued ? … not willing to rest, either upon the report of the master, the decision of this court, or even upon their own judgments,- ujdou the evidence in the cause, but selected a commission, as more worthy of confidence or better qualified

Dailey v. National Hockey League

780 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1991

Clearly such conflict arises where both courts exercise in rem jurisdiction with respect to the same res. … The two suits at issue here, to the extent they seek monetary relief, clearly fall into the second category.

In re Roper & Twardowsky, LLC

566 B.R. 734 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 2017

Shortly after the QSF was established, all remaining plaintiffs in the Prudential Litigation — the QSF beneficiaries — received their settlement payments. … This is a blatant example of representing parties on opposite sides of a litigation, which RPC 1.7(a)(1) clearly prohibits.

Taylor v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INC.

669 F. Supp. 2d 501 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2009

Prima Facie Case Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … Although the PIP did not mention those clients by name, it clearly set as two of Plaintiffs objectives closing new business and acquiring higher value added business.

Bayway Refining v. State Util.

333 N.J. Super. 420 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2000

that clearly contemplated ongoing activity in New Jersey. … Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States.

Jones v. Warren

202 N.J. Super. 165 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 10, 1984

complaint in lieu of prerogative writs and an order to show cause seeking various forms of relief against the township clerk based upon the latter’s refusal to certify that the petition contained the requisite number of qualified … The Mayor’s failure to participate in the order to show cause proceeding then before the court would not preclude him from litigating issues material to the complaint after these had been established by the Mayor filing a

Dyfs v. Vm

408 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 2009

As a result, the judge ordered that a psychiatrist be appointed who would have the same immunity as the court. At the March 19, 2007 permanency hearing, J.M.G.' … s refusal to consent to invasive procedures clearly was a major consideration in his decision.

New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. State of New Jersey

653 F. Supp. 1453 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 1987

Regardless of whether the foregoing provisions contemplated protection of the public as a primary concern, these provisions are clearly duplicative of the federal provisions. … The allegation of an additional purpose for this regulatory scheme does not render it immune from preemption. Hughey, 774 F.2d at 595 .

State v. Mount

30 N.J. 195 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 17, 1959

S. 2A :113-4) and was duly objected to by the defendant; it clearly tended to dilute the jury’s sense of responsibility in passing on the issue of life or death in very much the same manner as did the trial court’s earlier … In the instant matter the particular questions which were asked by defense counsel and to which the State’s objections were sustained, apparently were directed towards establishing that the defendant had come from a broken

State v. Tindell

417 N.J. Super. 530 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2011

The Star Ledger Article Given the nature of its content, the news article contained in the edition of the Star Ledger found in the jury room clearly qualifies as "inherently prejudicial information." … Like all human beings, judges are not immune from having strong feelings about such matters.

Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu, LLC, Etc. v. Medical

445 N.J. Super. 173 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2016

MRO also contends that the invoice is neither a consumer contract nor subject to the stringent standards established in Atalese; and it clearly informed BH&P that disputes over the invoice must be arbitrated. … Under state and federal law, a patient has a qualified right to inspect or obtain copies of his or her medical records.