Case law

Elizabeth Gnall v. James Gnall

432 N.J. Super. 129 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2013

Stein opined plaintiff was "very qualified" for and would be "best suited" to continue as a computer programmer or computer software engineer because she had a "very high level of training." … The court must clearly set forth factual findings and legal conclusions for the benefit of the parties and to aid appellate review.

In Re Eleventh Ward Building & Loan Ass'n

130 N.J. Eq. 414 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 19, 1941

This state has asserted such to be its public policy; *426 and so the proffered evidence, so far as it was revealed, would have been clearly immaterial. Vide Bucsi v. Longworth Building and Loan Association, supra. … The provision deals with reserves “heretofore established by the Old Association by assessment charged against members as of March 31st, 1933.”

Artway v. Scheidemantel

671 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 1987

The fact that the defendant satisfied the requirements of those cases does not immunize her from claims that she denied Artway constitutional due process regarding a determination not discussed by those opinions. … This Court clearly has authority to enter summary judgment against the moving party, even if her opponent has not moved. 6 Moore’s Fed.Prac., para. 56.12 (2d Ed.1976); Morrissey v.

Jason Sharp v. Board of Trustees, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2026

Our Supreme Court in Richardson clarified the meaning of the phrase "result of a traumatic event" in the statute in establishing a five-part test a claimant seeking accidental disability retirement benefits must satisfy … Because 2(b) is clearly applicable here, the Board's final agency decision is reversed, and the Board is directed to award accidental disability retirement benefits to Sharp.

Stomel v. City of Camden

192 N.J. 137 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 25, 2007

The official must also be responsible for establishing final government policy respecting such activity before the municipality can be held liable. … Stomel’s speech undoubtedly would qualify as protected conduct under CEPA’s provisions. See N.J.S.A 34:19-3(a), (e)(1).

Rogers v. Gordon

404 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 12, 2008

Clearly, under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, passed seven years after the execution of the present ant[e]-nuptial agreement, and remaining in effect. . . require[s] a court of equity to reject those agreements which … "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any deference, however." Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Tp.

CORTICO v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGESE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2025

To qualify for the intentional wrong exception, a plaintiff must satisfy the two-pronged test articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Millison. See 501 A.2d at 513-14. … safety guard or device establishes an “intentional wrong” within the meaning of the WCA); Mabee v.

Falcey v. Civil Service Commission

16 N.J. 117 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 1954

S. 2A:168-5), it was established as early as 1919 in Mercer County and was then approved by the Commission, presumably under its broad classification powers. R. S. 11:4-1; R. S. 11:5-1; R. S. 11:7-1 et seq. Cf. R. … Marshall for many years; he is clearly in no present position to attack the 1941 designation. Cf. Covey v. City of Plainfield, 11 N. J. 375, 381 (1953); Clayton v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, 130 N. J.

L.L. v. Evesham Township Board of Education

141 F. Supp. 3d 288 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2015

The framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. … A district court may conclude on a motion for summary judgment that a “response [is] not ‘clearly unreasonable’ as a matter of law.” Id. at 649 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 .

Ab v. Sew

175 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 2003

To prevent endless re-litigation of settled cases, new developments in case law generally do not qualify as "`an extraordinary circumstance' as to justify relief from a final judgment[.]" Hartford Ins. Co. v. … Briefly stated, "[p]rospective application is appropriate when a decision establishes a new principle of law by overruling past precedent or by deciding an issue of first impression." Montells v.

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. City of Hoboken

10 N.J. 418 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1952

Stewart, who qualified as an expert witness for the cities,-as to pier rentals along the Jersey City and Hoboken waterfronts. … That case did not concern the admissibility of evidence used circumstantially by a qualified expert witness to explain the basis of his opinion.

In RE 1999-2000 ABBOTT v. Burke Implementing Regulations

348 N.J. Super. 382 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 22, 2002

There shall be a code of conduct that clearly defines acceptable and unacceptable student behaviors and the consequences for them. … and recruitment efforts; and identify all qualified individuals, if any, who applied for the position.

COMM. WORKERS OF AM. v. McCormac

417 N.J. Super. 412 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2008

TRADE SECRETS Clearly, defendants have established the documents are exempt as proprietary commercial or financial information. Therefore, resolution of whether the documents are trade secrets is not required. … Clearly, that would harm the State's fiduciary interest.

DURANTE v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2020

system has clearly been compromised since being here. At least half of the men in my pod have the same symptoms as mine. (Durante Dec. ⁋ 2.) … Durante has failed to demonstrate that he qualifies for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The motion for compassionate release must be denied.

State v. Koedatich

118 N.J. 513 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1990

It undertook the burden of establishing certain facts beyond a reasonable doubt in its quest to obtain the harsher of the two alternative verdicts. … On that question, both the statute and our cases clearly recognize that a non-unanimous verdict is permissible under the Act. See State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 312, 524 A. 2d 188 .

GRAHAM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 2022

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Absent a clear waiver by a state of its Eleventh-Amendment immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear … established constitutionally protected activity . . . .”

Sommer v. Kridel

74 N.J. 446 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1977

, but it was an estate qualified by this right of the landlord to prevent its transfer,” 94 N. … W. 2d 362 (1950) (reasonable diligence not established where newspaper advertisement placed in one issue of local paper by a broker); Scheinfeld v. Muntz T.V., Inc., 67 Ill. App. 2d 8 , 214 N. E. 2d 506 (Ill.

State v. Denmon

347 N.J. Super. 457 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 6, 2002

This statute provides that a sentencing court may impose an extended term on individuals who qualify as persistent offenders. … Defendant's remaining contentions related to the State's failure to disclose evidence, the substitution of a juror, and the receipt of ineffective assistance of counsel are clearly without merit and do not require extended

N.J. Spine Soc'y v. N.J. Small Emp'r Health Benefits Program Bd.

453 N.J. Super. 94 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2018

In Section 51, the Legislature clearly described what "action" does and does not mean. Because the text of Section 51 is unambiguous, we need not consider extrinsic evidence to discern its meaning. … This includes establishment and modification of standard plans for marketing to small employers and establishing and administering assessment mechanisms.

Christopher J. Gramiccioni v. Department of Law and Public Safety (083198)(Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 2020

The Wright Court provided an example to illustrate the distinction it established between law enforcement activities and administrative activities. … In relevant part, the Directive clearly establishes the protocols a local prosecutor should follow when a law enforcement officer is alleged to have committed an act of domestic violence.