Case law

Wichert v. Walter

606 F. Supp. 1516 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 1985

It is difficult to envision any right more fundamental to the establishment and continuation of a free society. … Other courts have found bad faith where prosecutors have instituted charges in violation of a prior immunity agreement, Rowe v.

Garden State Islamic Ctr. v. City of Vineland

358 F. Supp. 3d 377 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 2018

S7, 774-01, 2000 WL 1079346 , at *S7777 ("It is important to note that RLUIPA does not provide a religious assembly with immunity from zoning regulation.") … Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a matter is ripe for adjudication by showing a specific present objective harm or the threat of specific future harm. Laird v.

Errington v. MANSFIELD TP. BD. OF ED.

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.

Leslie v. United States

986 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 3, 1997

The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government with respect to tort claims seeking money damages. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b). … The governing federal regulations clearly commit the implementation of security procedures, if any, to the Chief Postal Inspector and the individual postmasters.

State v. David Bueso(074261)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 2016

N.J.R.E. 601 provides that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception. … “[O]ur ‘system of justice . . . has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception[.]’”

Hirschbach v. NVE BANK

496 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2007

The evidence clearly supports a conservative estimate that between one-third and two-thirds of the members of the putative class of plaintiffs are domiciled in New Jersey. … Further militating in favor of remand, Plaintiffs filed this action in New Jersey, which clearly has a distinct nexus with the class members, the alleged harm and the defendants.

Felstiner v. Lyons

36 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 1955

He had executed his last will and testament on November 30, 1948, and a codicil thereto on December 8, 1949, both of which were duly probated, and the plaintiffs qualified as co-executors and co-trustees. … Was it the testator’s intention to deny his representatives the authority to discharge Lyons and thus establish him in his employment permanently?

TODD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

Accordingly, for the purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity, “county or municipal law enforcement officials may be State officials when they prosecute crimes or otherwise carry out policies established by the State, but … A prosecutor is immune if “the conduct triggering absolute immunity clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).

Bimbo v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital

644 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 1986

Sorenson, in the presence of the entire BTMH Medical Staff, as “inferiority qualified” — between Dr. Nanavati and Dr. Robert J. … In order to prevail on an action pursuant to this section, the plaintiff must establish three elements.

HWANG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2026

A government policy or custom can be established in two ways: Policy is made when a ‘decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish a municipal policy with respect to the action’ issues an … County of 2 At this stage, this Court declines to address whether Sumano and Autunnale are entitled to qualified immunity. Hunterdon, No. 12-6804, 2013 WL 1163751, at *3 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2013)).

Lakeside Manor v. State

421 N.J. Super. 362 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 1, 2011

The Commissioner reasoned that this failure rendered the TWAs “null and void” as of the date appellants began construction of sewers and thus this “qualifying approval ] expire^],” N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a)(3)(c), before March … Moreover, even if a violation of a condition of the permit is established, the agency must determine whether revocation is an appropriate remedy for the violation.

CORRADI v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2022

Procedural History On October 28, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the basis of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment search, false arrest … Div. 1999), to establish that defendants violated his due process rights. However, Dougherty is clearly distinguishable.

State v. King

340 N.J. Super. 390 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 15, 2001

In an unpublished opinion, we reversed because defendant failed to give a sufficient factual basis to establish possession of the weapon. State v. King, A-4022-97, decided May 12, 1999. … While the doctrine of equitable estoppel is applied only in very compelling circumstances, it may be applied where the interests of justice, morality and common fairness clearly dictate that course.

Lusardi v. Curtis Point Property Owners Ass'n

86 N.J. 217 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1981

But this principle must be qualified where land has a unique character and a statewide policy designates what uses are appropriate for such land. … This scheme clearly conflicts with State priorities for the use of the State’s oceanfront resources.

In Re Environmental Protection Dep't.

177 N.J. Super. 304 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1981

There, the warrantless search involved inspection of a catering establishment's liquor supply to investigate possible violations of the federal excise tax law. … We also note that what is actually involved here is the discharge of pollutants into the environment, an activity which we believe is clearly subject to the regulatory powers of DEP.

Powers v. Canda

40 N.J. Eq. 602 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1885

Powers, that this, with other fact's, establishes that the deeds and acknowledgments were antedated, so as to appear to have been executed before this writ of attachment was issued. … Canda’s connection with, and knowledge of, all these transactions and their purport and effect in hindering other creditors, clearly appears in the whole case, and more particularly, I think, in the testimony of Mr.

State v. Meyer

192 N.J. 421 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 19, 2007

Thus, “both prison-bound and non-bound offenders” may qualify for Drug Court. … N.J.S.A 2C:35-14 does not establish and indeed does not even mention Drug Courts.

Borawick v. Barba

7 N.J. 393 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 2, 1951

The inferior courts and their jurisdiction may from time to time be established, altered or abolished by law.” Article XI, sec. … We believe that the meaning and purpose of the constitutional paragraph is thus clearly demonstrated without further comment by us and that they had no relation to the inferior courts.

CW v. Cooper Health System

388 N.J. Super. 42 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 10, 2006

s discharge summary and instructions should have clearly and conspicuously indicated that the test results were pending. … The nature of her claim is not clearly delineated before us. Clearly, she can have no present claim herself for she fortunately was born without the HIV virus.

HUTCHINSON v. BERGEN COUNTY N.J. SHERIFFS OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 2022

The entities first: Neither the Bergen County Board of Commissioners nor the Bergen County Sheriff’s Office qualifies as a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Brandon v. … Assuming this to be true, as I must, a negligent failure to prevent an inmate attack is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Davidson v.