Case law

GEORGE E. PEARSON v. BOROUGH OF KEANSBURG (L-4135-18, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 2022

The Borough asserted immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(b) because Wood was immune under N.J.S.A. 59:3-2(a) for exercising the judgment and discretion vested in him in performing an investigation of an unknown male on the … As such, the judge concluded the TCA's discretionary immunity exception to liability applied.

State v. Conners

125 N.J. Super. 500 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1973

The Supreme Court set forth a caveat at the conclusion of its opinion: It is, of course, most essential, in view of the heavy impact the result can have, that proper administration of the test be clearly established before … This includes full proof that the equipment was in proper order, the operator qualified and the test given correctly (as well as the fact that the defendant consented orally or in writing). [ 42 N.J. at 171 emphasis added

Bank of New York v. Raftogianis

418 N.J. Super. 323 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 2010

The debt in question was clearly payable to American Home Acceptance. … That is clearly contemplated by the Rules of Court.

Peper v. Princeton University Board of Trustees

77 N.J. 55 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1978

Defining the burden a plaintiff must meet to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is a delicate task. … The gist of McDonnell-Douglas is that an employee who is a member of a protected group and who is qualified for hiring or promotion may not be rejected for any reason other than the fact that another seemingly qualified individual

In re the Adoption of Amendments to Northeast

435 N.J. Super. 571 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2014

In her decision, the ALJ summarized the testimony of the seventeen witnesses presented by the parties, all of whom were qualified as experts in their fields. … That deference is clearly applicable in this case.

State v. Olivera

344 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 1, 2001

Without proper judicial guidance, jurors are not qualified to make such a determination. We therefore reverse defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial. … Although not objected to, the last sentence was clearly improper. State v. Moore, 304 N.J.Super. 135, 143-44 , 698 A. 2d 1259 (App.Div.1997); (citing Wainwright v.

WASHINGTON COMMONS v. Jersey City

416 N.J. Super. 555 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 12, 2010

As a threshold matter, we note that just as a "trial court's interpretations of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference[,]" Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. … For reasons already noted, the instant matter appears to so qualify. Reversed.

BEY v. COMBS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2025

)(2)(B) requires courts to review the complaint and dismiss claims that: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In the event Plaintiff believes that he is able to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, he may file an amended complaint that clearly sets forth the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including

Mount Olive Complex v. Township of Mount Olive

356 N.J. Super. 500 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2003

The Board designated Budd Lake and certain other sections of the Township as qualifying "centers," but not plaintiffs property. Id. at 523 , 774 A. 2d 704 . … II); that is, to modify or terminate a Mount Laurel consent degree a municipality "`must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and the proposed modification is suitably tailored

Neuner v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (In re Lymecare, Inc.)

301 B.R. 662 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2003

FEHBP is clearly a “governmental plan” excluded from ERISA requirements. B. Preemption. … The cited regulation clearly prohibits suit against the carriers or the carriers’ subcontractors in lieu of the OPM.

State v. Williams

113 N.J. 393 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 8, 1988

If they can take it out of their mind and lay it aside and listen to the evidence here presented in the Court, and the law, and he clearly indicated to me he could do that. He is qualified. You're denied. MR. … the composition of the total qualified jury panel.

State v. Ball

141 N.J. 142 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1995

Clearly, courts have not found any one uncontroversial definition of “enterprise.” … We are confident that the Legislature intended to confer no such immunity.

INDEMNITY, ETC., OF NA v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. of NY

53 N.J. Super. 90 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1958

The policy does not provide, as did many policies issued in former years, that a person seeking to qualify as an additional insured must show that he had permission to drive or operate the automobile from the named insured … Travelers Indemnity Co., 126 N.J.L. 56 ( E. & A. 1940), which defendant Metropolitan says is controlling, is clearly distinguishable.

Finley v. United States

130 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 18, 1955

Todd also argues that Congress and the courts have decreased the scope of sovereign immunity from suit. … As has been noted in the original opinion, the facts clearly establish laches. The prejudice suffered by Todd has been great.

LAWSON v. PRAXAIR, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2021

Moreover, the plain language of the NJPSA does not require a patient’s injury to be established before invoking the privilege. … Supp. 3d 610, 621 (D.N.J. 2015) (“A party asserting a legislative privilege . . . bears the burden of establishing the applicability of legislative immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.”)

MOLZ v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 2023

The only means to establish a Title VII claim is to contact an EEO counselor. Sending a Tort Claim notice to the U.S. … To rebut the presumption of public access, the party seeking confidentiality must demonstrate “good cause” by establishing that disclosure will cause a “‘clearly defined and serious

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 68 v. Delaware River & Bay Authority

147 N.J. 433 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 11, 1997

Through interstate compacts, states can establish bi-state agencies. On receiving the consent of Congress, the agency becomes a *440 creature of the creator states and the federal government. Hess v. Port Auth. … Thus, the Compact qualifies as a “congressionally sanctioned interstate compact the interpretation of which presents a question of federal law.”

Wilkinson v. Bauerle

41 N.J. Eq. 635 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1886

organized the new company, as charged in the bill, and he had received $200,000 of its capital stock, but had not transferred any of it to any stockholder or officer of the old company except one share to one person to qualify … The omission to re-enact the second section of the act to prevent frauds by incorporated companies, and the repeal of that act, clearly indicate a legislative intent to no longer prohibit the conduct which that section had

Sensient Colors Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

193 N.J. 373 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 29, 2008

If we are to have harmonious relations with our sister states, absent extenuating circumstances sufficient to qualify as special equities, comity and common sense counsel that a New Jersey court should not interfere with … Clearly, the initial burden should be on the party challenging the appropriateness of the court exercising jurisdiction.

WORTHY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2023

Aug. 12, 2016) (“[T]he Third Circuit has long held that the DOH is an arm of the State of New Jersey for sovereign immunity purposes.”).15 Yet Plaintiff has not established that any of the exceptions to sovereign … immunity apply here.