Case law

PRITCHETT v. GLOBAL TELL LINK CORP

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 2021

Title 28, section 1915 of the United States Code establishes certain financial requirements for prisoners who are attempting to bring a civil action in forma pauperis. … 40A of the New Jersey Statutes; provided, however, the State Treasurer or appropriate person on behalf of the county or private correctional facility shall contract with the qualified

Nanavati v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital

645 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 1986

Nanavati, in making the statements, abused his qualified privilege. e. Entire Controversy Doctrine Dr. … As such, the full publication clearly suggests that the statements are opinion.

Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Construction Co.

18 N.J. Super. 380 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 6, 1952

The case was submitted to the jury upon instructions that a finding of negligence might be rested upon (1) the violation of an alleged duty under "An Act establishing a safety code for workers in the construction industry … The cases are clearly distinguishable.

Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar

335 N.J. Super. 562 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 20, 2000

("NICS") A key provision bearing on this appeal reads: (b) Establishment of system. … V In addition to their separation-of-powers challenge to the Governor's designation and the State Police's procedures, appellants contend in the alternative that two of the State Police's Operational Procedures qualified

Mannillo v. Gorski

100 N.J. Super. 140 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1968

But most of them make no explanation of the qualifying terms and leave the impression that the occupant must not merely be in possession adversely to the owner but must by word or act proclaim during all the period of the … Defendant has produced evidence that clearly and convincingly proves (and the Court so finds) that she has been in possession of the 15 inch strip upon which the steps and platform and the concrete walk from the steps to

Garshman v. Universal Resources Holding, Inc.

641 F. Supp. 1359 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 1986

System is not and has never been licensed, registered or qualified to conduct or transact business in New Jersey. Id., 114. … Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that “immunity from antitrust laws ‘is not lightly implied.’ ” United States v.

Waters v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

158 F. Supp. 2d 415 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 2001

It also found she had failed to establish a physical injury as required by Article 17 and thus could not recover under Article 17. … Waters, a qualified individual with a disability.” Compl. at ¶ 82.

T. I. McCormack Trucking Co. v. United States

298 F. Supp. 39 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 1969

Regarding this it stated: “As previously indicated, a qualifying phrase is to be applied to the word or phrase immediately preceding rather than to more remote words or phrases, unless such extension is clearly required by … Y. * * * ” phrase were technical words of art but does say and has established that “Collectively the words have a definite and distinctive meaning in the context here considered.”

In the Matter of the Expungement Application of K.M.G.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2023

citation omitted), it relied on "the presumption that a word or phrase is used in the same sense throughout [a] statute," finding that "since the phrase 'most recent conviction' in the third sentence of subsection (b) is clearly … to mean "New Jersey conviction," while it is not so qualified in the waiting period provision.

Philip Vitale v. Schering-Plough Corporation

447 N.J. Super. 98 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 22, 2016

"Even if unambiguous, it is well-established that exculpatory contracts will not be enforced where they are contrary to public policy." Id. at 594. … Although a defendant must produce some evidence, "the quantum of evidence required to qualify for an apportionment charge is low." Boryszewski, supra, 380 N.J.

Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission v. Municipal Sanitary Landfill Authority

68 N.J. 451 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 18, 1975

Ed. 734 , the Court considered a South Carolina statute that had established size and weight limits for trucks using state highways. … Clearly this is not so.

Murphy v. Housing Authority & Urban Redevelopment Agency

32 F. Supp. 2d 753 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 1999

In considering these prima facie elements, “an ‘inference of discrimination’ arises when an employer fails to [hire, promote, or otherwise provide equitable compensation to] a qualified member of a protected class.” … For example, in paragraph 20 of Murphy’s amended certification, Murphy states that “Glowacki is clearly biased against [him] in light of [Glowacki’s] claim ...

State v. Brooks

309 N.J. Super. 43 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1998

And then there was testimony during the trial itself, particularly from someone who is qualified as an expert, Mr. … The case is clearly distinguishable.

Smith v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.

419 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 1976

Dictum by the Ninth Circuit expresses agreement with Judge Hunter’s majority opinion, but disposes of the case on the ground that there was no state agency in California which qualified under § 633(b). Curry v. … A procedural requirement of the Act, of doubtful meaning in a given case, should not be interpreted to deny an employee a claim for relief unless to do so would clearly further some substantial goal of the Act.

Plainfield-Union Water Co. v. Inhabitants of City of Plainfield

83 N.J.L. 332 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 7, 1912

The power given is to supply such quantity of water as may be required by the inhabitants residing within the corporate limits of the city — a power in itself clearly insufficient to authorize the supply of inhabitants of … It cannot be said that the act of 1876 was meant to establish a general scheme by which a public supply might be substituted for a private supply.

Judge v. United States

119 F. Supp. 3d 270 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 2015

The clear and unambiguous text of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) clearly establishes that Congress intended punishment under § 924(c) and § 924(j) to be subject to separate punishment in addition to any punishment imposed on the underlying … Because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief as to the sentences on counts one, two, and four pursuant to the concurrent sentence doctrine, and because the plain text of § 924 clearly establishes a congressional intent

Tormo v. Yormark

398 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 1975

At that time, moreover, Devlin allegedly stated that Yormark was a “good well-qualified lawyer.” Wendel Deposition at 55-56. … The bank knew that Yormark was an attorney and that he had established separate “personal” and “trustee” accounts under its auspices.

Gurtman v. United States

237 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 19, 1965

The other officers thereof are respectively his wife, and the secretary employed in his law office, holding qualifying shares only. Taxpayer has and has had the sole power to sign corporate checks. … The evidence clearly indicates that the $1,000 payment was made early in the corporation’s 1958 tax year (fiscal *538 1958) but still in calendar year 1957, the plaintiffs’ 1957 tax year.

State v. Martinez

229 N.J. Super. 593 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1989

THE COURT'S INADEQUATE AND MISLEADING INSTRUCTION ON DEFENDANT'S IMMUNITY FROM THE DUTY TO RETREAT CONSTITUTES REVERSIBLE ERROR. II. … Rivera," defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed that possession of a weapon for a precautionary purpose is not a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d, and that a finding of an unlawful use of the weapon would not establish

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEROME SHAW, JR. (13-04-0591, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 2018

The Attorney General has not established any standard limiting resubmission. … at 55, and holding that the prosecutor is obliged to present clearly exculpatory evidence to a grand jury).