Case law

Radiological Society of NJ v. Sheeran

175 N.J. Super. 367 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1980

I Blue Cross is a nonprofit hospital service corporation organized for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and operating a hospital service plan. N.J.S.A. 17:48-1. … The Fourteenth Amendment immunizes people from actions by the State which affirmatively and significantly impinge on "fundamental rights, so thought to be inherent in their nature rather than created by any constitution or

WAGNER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2026

This Court rejected Defendants Simpkins and Henry’s arguments that they were entitled to qualified immunity, as well as their claims that they were entitled to good faith immunity and the application of the sudden emergency … Second, as discussed below, because Plaintiff’s remaining claims do not establish a basis for liability, it follows that the WDA claim also fails.

CAPPS v. DIXON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 2022

Plaintiffs Have Stated Plausible Claims Against Chief Farabella Chief Farabella argues that this Court was required to find that he is entitled to qualified immunity when considering his prior Motion to Dismiss Capps … The Court is also not persuaded by Orndorf’s other arguments—that placing his knee on Capps’s back is not objectively unreasonable nor is it a clearly established violation of law for him to do so when effectuating an arrest

Frugis v. Bracigliano

177 N.J. 250 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2003

In response, the Legislature enacted the TCA, which restored limited, sovereign immunity in such cases. Alston v. City of Camden, 168 N.J. 170, 176 , 773 A.2d 693 (2001); Fluehr v. … If the language is plain and clearly reveals the statute’s meaning, the Court’s sole function is to enforce the statute according to its terms. Ibid.

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.

Gonzalez-Posse v. Ricciardulli

410 N.J. Super. 340 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 2009

At around this same time, defendant was entering the seventh year of his H-1B visa, having qualified for an extension on January 31, 2005 when DirecTV filed a Labor Certification on his behalf. … Once changed circumstances have been established, as here, Lepis, supra, 83 N.J. at 151 , 416 A. 2d 45 ; Martindell v.

In Re the Estate of Hoffman

63 N.J. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 1973

Hoffman would have been regarded as a quasi- trustee of the fund for the estate in the absence of her covenant in the separation agreement, as she clearly would, she surely cannot qualify her fiduciary obligation in that … Moreover, as the majority recognizes, she has not established a beneficial right in the money as either a joint tenant or a tenant in common.

Demarest v. Vandenberg

39 N.J. Eq. 130 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1884

If it appears, he will be qualified to testify. If it does not .appear otherwise, he may show it, if he can. As to the status of a next friend, generally, see Balt. & Ohio R. R. Coi v. … The rule clearly extends to cases where the witness is incompetent to testify at all. It in terms empowers the. examiner to decide upon all objections to evidence.

R.E. v. Horizon Nj Health

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 7, 2025

The Assistant Commissioner disagreed with the ALJ's findings and determined that "there is insufficient evidence to establish that [R.E.] satisfies the clinical eligibility criteria necessary to qualify for [ADHS] pursuant … "[I]f our review of the record shows that the agency's finding is clearly mistaken, the decision is not entitled to judicial deference." A.M. v. Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 466 N.J. Super. 557, 565 (App.

State v. Rhoda

206 N.J. Super. 584 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 1986

The actual losses of the eight victims were established as ranging from $1,045 to $16,701. … The judge clearly set forth in the record his reasons for setting restitution.

United States v. Branella

972 F. Supp. 294 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 1997

As the statute clearly states, a prima facie case alleging a violation of Section 3604(a) is satisfied by evidence showing any one of the violative actions set forth. … a prima facie case: (1) the complainant is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified to rent the unit in question; (3) she was rejected; and (4) the unit remained available after she was rejected

Microsoft Corp. v. CMOS Technologies, Inc.

872 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 1994

In this case, the record clearly supports a finding that defendants infringement was deliberate and with the intent to deceive the public. … Systems, and not a corporate entity, the *1340 evidence clearly supports a finding that she acted intentionally in the sale of counterfeit Microsoft products.

United States v. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

731 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 18, 1990

But as we see time and time again, a democratic election does not establish a democracy. As I noted in my November 28,1988 letter to Mr. … I also note that under sovereign-immunity principles, see, e.g., Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 , 106 S.Ct. 2957 , 92 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986); United States v.

A.O. VS. CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS IN CHILDREN RELIEF FUND COMMISSION (CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS IN CHILDREN RELIEF FUND COMMISSION) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 2021

Reimbursements for medical expenses are "subject to the rules and regulations established by the [C]ommission . . . ." N.J.S.A. 26:2-156. … The law clearly provides that the Commission determines whether to reimburse medical expenses on a yearly basis and may deny otherwise qualified expenses for budgetary purposes.

Hollister v. Fiedler

22 N.J. Super. 439 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 1952

of the Fiedler stock was nil"; (6) that "The Court erred in concluding that plaintiff was an employee of Fiedler & Hollister, Inc. within the contemplation of the terms of the option agreement and that plaintiff was thus qualified … But, we think that a reading of this provision clearly dispells the thought that it was agreed that one party might, on disassociation with the business, take with him or acquire more than his proportionate share of the assets

Trenkamp v. Township of Burlington

170 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 31, 1979

The preponderance of the existing case law clearly favors some sort of exception in these situations. … The covenant expressly allows more than one structure to be located on the property as long as each qualifies as a customary appurtenant building for one family use.

NINA PAGAN VS. NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY (L-1541-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2017

He also concluded NHA was immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:5-4 (immunizing public entities and employees "for failure to provide police protection service or . . . … In rejecting any argument that the public entity could be liable for a "dangerous condition" on its property, N.J.S.A. 59:4- 1(a), Judge Michels clearly stated: There cannot be the slightest doubt that the

Matter of Prudential Ins. Co. Litig.

282 N.J. Super. 256 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 10, 1995

Clearly, the codification of the particularity requirement in R. 4:36-2 was meant to halt abuses by insuring that shareholder plaintiffs use the courts as a last resort to bring about desired change. … Prudential's directors are elected by qualified voters. N.J.S.A. 17B:18-22. Qualified voters include "every policyholder who is 18 years of age or more and whose policy has been in force for at least 1 year."

In re Mercedes-Benz Antitrust Litigation

213 F.R.D. 180 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 19, 2003

That is clearly not the situation before the Court, however. On fun-gibility, Dr. … This may involve amending the class, establishing sub-classes, or even de-certification for damages purposes. See Bogosian, 561 F.2d at 456 . Common liability issues clearly predominate.