Case law

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.

Hartwell v. Camman

10 N.J. Eq. 128 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · May 15, 1854

The estate was clearly one of fee simple in the mines. The condition neither lessened, enlarged, or qualified that estate. … The analysis only establishes the fact, that this is not a metalliferous ore.

Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Margetts

7 N.J. 556 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1951

Colpitts, that result is reached against the testator’s clearly expressed intent. Had Mr. … We note, however, the words of authority with which the author states the law applicable to instances different from our own as distinguished from the qualified and restrained expression that “The same construction, too,

Brizak v. Needle

239 N.J. Super. 415 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1990

Defendant qualified himself at trial as an expert "in the practice of law as it relates to personal injury matters" with particular "experience and knowledge in the area of medical malpractice." … We are satisfied from a careful review of this record that the other issues raised are clearly without merit and require no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.

State v. Kaye

176 N.J. Super. 484 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1980

According to established procedure, the blood sample was also tested for drugs. This test proved to be negative. The two testings consumed the entire blood sample. … The rule was clearly stated in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 , 93 S.Ct. 1602, 1608 , 36 L.Ed. 2d 235, 243 (1973), as follows: ...

Tolfree v. Wetzler

22 F.2d 214 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 10, 1927

The upper limit has been established. It lies above the limit of microscopic visibility (10~5cm.). … [Eng.] 541) clearly indicates that the opinions of the judges in no way justify its text.

Brach, Eichler, Rosenberg, Silver, Bernstein, Hammer & Gladstone, PC v. Ezekwo

345 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 2001

The earlier order clearly dissatisfied defendant, but *254 she has not articulated how or why the interests of justice required the trial court to reconsider the prior judge's ruling. … Defendant also had no expert testimony to establish proximate causation between the alleged breach of duty and damages.

Grimley v. Ridgewood

45 N.J. Super. 574 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1957

So the case is clearly distinguishable from Keller v. Town of Westfield, *583 39 N.J. Super. 430 ( App. Div. 1956), cited by appellant. … In any event, we are of the opinion that all of the circumstances discussed above sufficiently qualify as special reasons within the authority granted by the Legislature to require the conclusion that appellant has failed

State v. Pindale

249 N.J. Super. 266 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1991

The commentary continues, It articulates the general mens rea requirements for the establishment of liability, i.e., the general framework for defining the terms which establish the mental element necessary for each of the … Although, in the absence of objection by defense counsel, the excesses of the prosecutor might be considered harmless *287 error and insufficient to qualify as plain error amounting to a miscarriage of justice under the law

IN THE MATTER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE AND FIREMAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY DENIAL OF DOLORES ORTEGA'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE SURVIVOR BENEFITS ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 5, 2020

As discussed above, the applicable statutes and regulation clearly state that only domestic partners who are of the same sex are eligible for the survivor benefit. … It is well established that a person deemed eligible for benefits is entitled to a liberal interpretation of the pension statutes, Krayniak v. Bd. of Trs., 412 N.J. Super. 232, 242 (App.

KING

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Plaintiff, “[a]bandonment, violence, abuse and neglect are the norm lacking any exposure to religion let alone a solid grounding in a particular [illegible word and question mark] access to qualified religious provider … Free Exercise of Religion “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Fell v. Rafferty

736 F. Supp. 623 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 1990

Thus, the only prejudice asserted is not clearly attributable to petitioner’s delay. B. … The petitioner can overcome this presumption of correctness if he establishes that the procedures by which the state court arrived at its findings are tainted in one of seven ways 7 or the findings are clearly erroneous.

Germann v. Matriss

55 N.J. 193 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 19, 1970

must establish de•cedent’s contributory negligence by clear and convincing .proof. … In a system of justice which has established as a general rule that all persons should be qualified to testify, and that disqualification should be the exception, there is no sound reason why the survivor in a negligence

Martin v. Pollard

271 N.J. Super. 551 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 28, 1994

There was no schedule or timetable established for the job. However, on this occasion Pollard supplied only the water seal while Martin supplied the brushes, ladder and related materials. … Rather, the focal inquiry is whether the petitioner “qualifies as a member of the protected group of workmen within the fair meaning of the statute,” or the unprotected class. Ibid.

Brown v. City of Paterson

424 N.J. Super. 176 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2012

We quote its provisions in full: A The Municipal Court of the city, known as the “Municipal Court of the City of Paterson,” as heretofore established, is hereby continued. B. … This language clearly implies a legislative intent of service continuity. An independent judiciary could not survive without it.

LOATMAN v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2023

P. 12(b)(6) and/or dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)- (iii). … IFP Application Plaintiff qualifies for permission to proceed IFP.

EISAI R&D MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. v. SHILPA MEDICARE LIMITED

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2020

The statistics also confirm that Governor Murphy’s reduction in restrictions was attributed to the decreasing number of COVID-19 positive cases, and clearly, not this litigation or some other related reasons. … Plaintiff Cannot Establish Standing i.

DIAZ v. CITY OF PASSAIC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 2019

The SAC also does not indicate on or about when the “numerous occasions” occurred. 4 Plaintiff's First Amendment claim is not clearly pled in the SAC. … While the SAC clearly sets forth the position, it fails to indicate the duties and responsibilities of the office.