Case law

Esdaile v. Hartsfield

245 N.J. Super. 591 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1991

To qualify for PIP benefits, the claimant must meet the eligibility requirements of the original Fund statute. N.J.S.A. 39:6-86.1e. … To use any part of this money to compensate plaintiff's lawyer directly contradicts the Legislature's intentions in establishing the Fund.

State v. Fornino

223 N.J. Super. 531 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 16, 1988

The trial court instructed the jury that, in order to establish defendant's guilt of an attempt, the State was required to show that he ... did or omitted to do anything which under the circumstances as a reasonable person … Paul, supra, 614 F. 2d at 116 . [7] III Defendant's claim made in Point XII that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel is clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Yu Kikumura v. United States

978 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 1997

Kikumura challenged the finding that the bombs were intended to kill persons was clearly erroneous. Id. … The Supreme Court has established a narrow exception to this rule.

AMERICAN FIRE v. NJ Div. of Tax.

375 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2005

Further, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, Art. IV, § 2, is inapplicable, because corporations are not held to be "persons" to which that clause applies. See Hemphill v. … In this context, our long-established jurisprudence requires us to defer to a legislature's judgment if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.

JOANNA v. ROUTE 22 HONDA

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

must review the complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … To establish a prima facie claim under ECOA, a plaintiff must show that she (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) applied for credit from defendant; (3) was qualified for the credit; and (4) was denied credit.

Gibbons v. Stemcor USA, Inc. (In Re B.S. Livingston & Co.)

186 B.R. 841 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 23, 1995

Under one particularly expansive Third Circuit decision, the bankruptcy court’s order may in fact qualify as a final order. … Nonetheless, under Third Circuit precedent, the order in this case may qualify as a “final order” even though it denied a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment.

In Re Clee

119 N.J.L. 310 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 1938

Schlemm, supra (at p. 436), “* * * Mere suspicion does not establish the legality of the election of the petitioner or the defeat of the incumbent." … It is the duty of the court to uphold an election unless it clearly appears that it was illegal. Love v. Freeholders, &c., 35 N. J. L. 269, 277; public policy so ordains. Cleary v. Kendall, supra.

United States v. WUNDER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 8, 2019

Therefore, Plaintiff meets its burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing the aforementioned IRS assessment. 15. … Wunder have repeatedly asserted a facially meritless and frivolous defense of immunity from United States tax law and jurisdiction.

Black v. Black

436 N.J. Super. 130 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2013

The three accounts shall be established within thirty-five days. … The existence of Rutgers as a continuing option, however, clearly remains viable as an affordable university where C.B. has already established success as a freshman.

State v. Hill

199 N.J. 545 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 14, 2009

It was prejudicial to defendant and was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. … Defendant himself identified the gun used in the robbery and stipulated that it qualified as an operable firearm.

Velsicol Chemical v. Environmental Prot. Dept.

182 N.J. Super. 575 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1982

No Earth Satellite representative or other qualified witness to support the admission of the report was thereafter produced, nor is appeal brought from the ruling excluding the report from evidence as inadmissible hearsay … remanding for retrial with the burden of proof resting upon the party challenging the existing physical scene, the Supreme Court commented: We note that on the record as it now stands, certain portions of the tract are clearly

State v. Tansimore

3 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 1950

Spradley, an eminently qualified specialist in the diagnosis and treatment of nervous and men-, tal diseases, testified in answer to an hypothetical question the defendant’s mental processes were so prostrated during the … The rule seems well defined and clearly stated and we see no reversible error committed here.

Hackensack Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Delaware Ostego Corp.

450 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 11, 2006

These two categories of materials are both clearly within the definition of solid waste under the Actjfootnote omitted). … NYS & W is clearly correct that there is substantial overlap between the allegations of the complaints in the two actions.

In Re State Ex Rel. Cv

201 N.J. 281 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 22, 2010

Moreover, because C.V. was clearly beyond her grandmother's control, the court placed her in the custody of the Division of Youth and Family Services. … s placements in YCS and VisionQuest do not satisfy the intended concept of detention in Rule 5:21-3(e) to qualify for mandatory day-to-day credit.

ELC v. Doe

198 N.J. 274 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 26, 2009

Finding that prong of the analysis clearly to have been met, the panel turned to the second prong and found that DOE failed to establish that the Simulation Memo constituted deliberative material: In our judgment, the material … The agency's ultimate decision aside, the Simulation Memo clearly was created and used during the deliberative process employed by DOE.

LASSITER-COVINGTON v. TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2021

City of Philadelphia, 10 While Moving Defendants do not assert qualified immunity, the Court, regardless, finds it unwise to engage in a qualified immunity analysis at this time. See Newland v. Reehorst, 328 F. … App’x 788, 791 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[I]t is generally unwise to venture into a qualified immunity analysis at the pleading stage as it is necessary to develop the factual record in the vast majority of cases.”).

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Schick

328 N.J. Super. 611 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 1999

provisions relating to associated subjects [citations omitted] requires the conclusion that any healthcare service authorized by the Act, in order to be eligible for recognition, must also comply with any other significant qualifying … The Fraud Act was clearly intended by the Legislature to apply to more than just the most egregious acts of insurance fraud.

Smith v. Whitaker

160 N.J. 221 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1999

, 8 N.J. 543, 555-56 , 86 A.2d 192 (1952) (noting remedial purpose of Wrongful Death Act and observing that from Act’s inception damages recoverable thereunder intended to be limited to “pecuniary injuries” sustained by qualified … Craig, 13 N.J.L. 294, 301 (Sup.Ct.1833), or “clearly excessive,” Leimgruber v. Claridge Assocs., 73 N.J. 450, 453, 375 A.2d 652 (1977).

Radio Taxi Service, Inc. v. Lincoln Mutual Insurance Co.

31 N.J. 299 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 1960

handling of the settlement offer was sufficient to withstand the insurance company’s motion to dismiss at the end of the assured’s case; although there was evidence from which other inferences might be drawn, the assured was clearly … So far as its interest is concerned, there must be a willingness within the policy limit reasonably to spend its money in purchasing immunity for the insured.

Anestis Karasaridis v. Voula Constantarakos

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2024

[Plaintiff's] Qualified Pension Benefit: The parties agree [plaintiff] has a Qualified Pension Benefit (AT&T Legacy Management Program) through his employer, AT&T. … "We will reverse only if we find the trial judge clearly abused his or her discretion." Clark v. Clark, 429 N.J. Super. 61, 72 (App. Div. 2012).