Case law

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.

State v. Holmes

290 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 1996

Recognizing that Robert Denike qualified for persistent offender status, we also pointed out that his record prior to the convictions he was appealing "can fairly be described as horrendous." … Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 , 113 S.Ct. 838 , 122 L.Ed. 2d 180 (1993), held that, to establish prejudice, a defendant must show not only that the outcome of his trial would have been different absent the alleged deficient representation

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.

Matter of Terminated Aetna Agents

248 N.J. Super. 255 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 1990

Although the Aetna Agents' agreement provides that commissions will be reduced from 15% to zero, neither the record nor our inquiries at oral argument established that Aetna contemplates any reduction in premium rates which … Super. 298 , 562 A. 2d 239 (App.Div. 1989). *261 As to Aetna's constitutional argument concerning infringement of contract, we find it to be clearly without merit. See Energy Reserves v.

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.

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[.]’”

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: ...

DMV v. Granziel

236 N.J. Super. 191 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 11, 1989

of one year with or without medication and that he is physically qualified to operate a motor vehicle." … Green's reports and opinions than to the contrary recommendations of the members of the Neurological Disorder Committee, and although she clearly stated that she did not construe N.J.A.C. 13:19-5.1 as imposing a non-rebuttable

MALAT v. BOROUGH OF MAGNOLIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2020

doctrine, and the qualified immunity doctrine. … It is well established that the Due Process Clause contains both a procedural and substantive component. American Exp. Travel Related Services, Inc. v.

ROBERT J. TRIFFIN VS. SHS GROUP, LLC (DC-013226-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 3, 2021

Defendant receives money from the federal government, and then distributes the funds to qualifying students for educational and living expenses. Id. … identifying it as duplicate, compared to defendant's copy referencing the electronic indorsements and transfers by both banks, and defendant's bank statement showing $1,431 deducted from his account, clearly

DAMUS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 13, 2026

By Opinion and Order dated April 29, 2026, the Court denied the Troopers’ motion to dismiss the civil rights claims based on qualified immunity and granted Ameream’s motion to dismiss both the § 1983 and negligence … That duty to prevent harm is clearly not limited to harm from physical hazards on the premises given that “the scope of a landowner’s duty to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties may include providing

Clear Advantage Title, Inc. v. Gibb (In Re Clear Advantage Title, Inc.)

438 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 2010

It provided, inter alia, that “Unless otherwise clearly indicated on the account records, anyone of you who signs this form, including authorized signers, may withdraw or transfer all or part of the account balance at any … Nat'l Turf Club, supra, 158 N.J.Super. at 203, 385 A.2d 932 (stating that “although a bank has complied with the [UCC] provisions, such compliance does not necessarily immunize it from ordinary tort liability.”)” 166 N.J.

State v. Green

346 N.J. Super. 87 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2001

supra , properly explained the test required to make the routine/non-routine determination: The degree of invasiveness or intrusiveness associated with any particular type of search determines whether or not that search qualifies … Asbury, supra, 586 F. 2d at 976-77 , set out a useful list of factors, distilled from many cases, that have been utilized by courts in determining whether reasonable suspicion has been established.

Brody v. Alfieri

179 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 1981

Brody has since presented his judgment to the qualified executrix under Alfieri's will; whether and to what extent assets will be available to pay the judgment is not yet known. … Clearly the statute must be read as granting the protection of the Fund only with respect to wrongful conduct of a broker or salesman acting in his capacity as such.

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.

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.

HARKER v. CORNELIUS

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

“‘[F]ailure to comply with established procedures does not deprive the fugitive of any protected right.’” Rivera v. Algarin, 350 F. … The interest of jurisprudence demands no less than qualified counsel to present this matter. ECF No. 2 at 1.

ROCK v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2023

'* Indeed, under Hightower, Rock clearly qualified as a career offender. The issue is whether counsel had a duty to anticipate a change in the law at the time of Rock’s sentencing or during his direct appeal. … Indeed, Rock’s counsel reasonably did not object to 15 Rock’s career offender designation at sentencing or on appeal because Rock clearly qualified as a career offender under Hightower

LOATMAN v. EXPERIAN 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.

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.