Case law

VALDEZ BLANCO v. TSOUKARIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 11, 2020

On April 22, 2020, Petitioner consented to a COVID-19 test, which indicated that Petitioner had had the virus and was likely recovering and in the process of developing an immunity to the virus. (Id. at 57-58). … Apr. 7, 2020) (denying request for TRO by habeas petitioner as he could not establish deliberate indifference to his medical needs).

G.S. VS. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES (DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 16, 2020

As a result, the agency determined that G.S. no longer qualified for ACA Medicaid. … also meet quality and performance standards established under this section.

Muise v. GPU, INC.

371 N.J. Super. 13 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2004

However, he qualified it by adding that such a benefits transfer method would have yielded only a "starting point," because any transfer has error associated with it. … In some circumstances, an econometric model may be used to establish injury on a class-wide basis once the proofs have established that all class members have suffered actual damage.

Nature's Touch Med Nj, LLC v. City of Hoboken

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2025

The TC Act waives the State's sovereign immunity subject to certain requirements and limitations. … Plaintiff's complaint does not clearly identify a tort cause of action.

In re NJPDES Permit No. NJ0025241

185 N.J. 474 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 11, 2006

Such hearings are appropriate when there exist adjudicative facts in dispute. “ ‘The law clearly is, at a most elementary level, that because a trial is a process for taking evidence, subject to cross-examination, and because … Nonetheless, to qualify for “party” status under the WPCA, one must demonstrate a significant issue of fact or law for which an adjudicative hearing is required became there is a triable dispute concerning adjudicative facts

William Fulmore v. City of Englewood

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 30, 2024

While DPW employees are not classified as administrative or law enforcement, they clearly fall within the category of public safety, and are therefore considered essential employees during states of emergency … Plaintiff has not established a prima facie claim under CEPA because he has not suffered an adverse employment action.

STATE EX REL. BOARD OF COMMR'S v. Wor-TV Tower

39 N.J. Super. 583 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 23, 1956

They have a public as well as a private aspect, and it is on this account that the immunity in question belongs to them. * * * It would seem quite irrational to say that the making of the track is an act done so far in behalf … Clearly the plaintiffs have not established that the tower constitutes a nuisance by reason of the precipitation of snow and ice from it.

State v. DR

214 N.J. Super. 278 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 16, 1986

POINT II The sentencing court clearly abused its discretion by imposing a manifestly excessive sentence. … Evid.R. 56(2) permits a qualified expert to give his opinion based upon facts or data which themselves may not be admissible.

Gauntt v. MAYOR & COUNCIL OF CITY OF BRIDGETON

194 N.J. Super. 468 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1984

It appears that plaintiff had only a qualified authority to determine the internal organization of the department at that time in that Ordinance No. 71-10, then controlling, provided that such authority was "under direction … Although it may have been proper for Maurer to have formulated a "policy" of having officers address neighborhood crime watch groups in various communities, he clearly interfered with plaintiff's duties as chief of police

Anzalone v. Westech Gear Corp.

271 N.J. Super. 522 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 25, 1994

The specifications clearly provide that the ram tensioner subject to development was to be free standing, base mounted structure which could be placed anywhere upon a ship's deck. * * * * * * * * *528 [T]he specifications … More importantly, WesTech cannot be accorded immunity here based upon the government contractor defense because it could have fulfilled both its contractual obligation to the government and a state-prescribed duty of care

Beach Haven Automotive, Inc. v. Borough of Beach Haven

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 2, 2025

After hearing the parties' arguments but no testimony, the trial court ruled that defendants had not met their burden of establishing, by substantial evidence, that the property qualified under either N.J.S.A. 40A:12A- … ; or any process of manufacture or treatment which is not clearly incidental to the retail business conducted on the premises

State ex rel. Fritts v. Kuhl

51 N.J.L. 191 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1889

The relator has referred to the proceedings of the constitutional convention of 1844 to establish his position. … provides that when a vacancy happens in the office of clerk or surrogate of any county (officers elected by the people), the governor shall fill such vacancy, and the commission shall expire when a successor is elected and qualified

Atlantic Trust Co. v. Consolidated Electric Storage Co.

49 N.J. Eq. 402 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1892

that, both according to the plain letter of the statute and the uniform construction it *406 has received, the power of the court in such cases depends exclusively on the fact of insolvency, and that until that fact is clearly-established … But until insolvency is proved, no foundation is laid for the exercise of discretion, and in any case *408 where the proofs fail to establish that fact, clearly and satisfactorily, the court must decline to act for want of

In re Chandler

337 N.J. Super. 600 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 2001

The Public Guardian opposed Summit’s appointment on the basis that Summit was not as qualified as the Public Guardian in the provision of adult protective services. … A review of the legislative history clearly shows that the Legislature, in enacting the Public Guardian for Elderly Adults Act, N.J.S.A. 52.-27G-20 to -31, never intended to sanction the conduct now espoused by the Public

State v. Pantusco

330 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2000

to establish the commission of the offense charged." … Therein we stated: It is now well established that burglary is complete upon entry with purpose of committing an offense. See State v.

Crispin v. Volkswagenwerk Ag.

248 N.J. Super. 540 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 1991

As an engineer with substantial credentials, Bradford was clearly qualified to testify as an expert on alternative, practical safer designs, particularly since he had an extensive background in the development of safety performance … Plaintiff's arguments in the cross-appeal clearly lack merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

SAMMUT v. VALENZANO WINERY LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2019

At some point, Troopers Gonzales and Crothers approached Plaintiff and “reported that he was clearly intoxicated.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) … immunity.”

Ajax Metal Co. v. Brady Brass Co.

155 F. 409 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · Jul 31, 1907

This, if established, is, of course, the end of the patent, the novelty of which it effectively negatives. … But clearly that was not the case. The journal analyzed was a single test piece of 19 pounds, of which Mr.

NAZAROV v. CITY OF BRIGANTINE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2024

re Second, Plaintiffs have failed to establish any intentional treatment by Defendants. … Aug. 12, 2019) (“Given that summary judgment is proper, there being no proof of a constitutional violation, the Court need not address the qualified immunity defense.”); Gentile v. DES, Props., 3:08-CV-2330, 2012 U.S.

New York & New Jersey Lubricant Co. v. Young

77 N.J. Eq. 321 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Aug 8, 1910

This statement would have, perhaps, to be qualified by what Lord Westbury said in the case above cited: “I cannot receive it as a rule that a plaintiff is not answerable for a falsehood because it may be so gross or palpable … Are they any the less material misrepresentations on that account, or do they indicate any the less clearly the purpose of adopting the label? It would seem plain, therefore, that complainant should be denied relief.