Case law

Fisch v. Manger

24 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 1957

L. 599 (E. & A. 1907), the court stressed that the constitutional language imports freedom from harm or substantial impairment but not “immunity from all regulation.” See State v. Maier, 13 N. J. 235, 276 (1953). … The separable issue of liability was clearly and properly decided against the defendants; under the evidence it could hardly have been determined otherwise and need not be submitted for redetermination. R.

State v. Lavary

152 N.J. Super. 413 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 29, 1977

Div. 1974), held that the presence of an unindicted coconspirator who had testified under a grant of immunity was sufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy against a coconspirator. … Mazzone was an undercover agent should in no way negate defendant's clearly manifested intent to commit a criminal act. State v. Moretti, supra at 190.

State v. Renshaw

390 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 2007

The Court held that the defendant's right of confrontation was violated by the admission of the laboratory certificate, which clearly was hearsay, regardless of whether its preparer had complied with the statute or not. … Id. at 927 . [7] *1088 In the instant case, the preparation of the Uniform Certification for Bodily Specimens Taken in a Medically Acceptable Manner could not qualify for admission under the business record exception to the

In re G.H.

455 N.J. Super. 515 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 2018

The Doe Court concluded the legislation was "clearly and totally remedial in purpose" and "designed simply and solely to enable the public to protect itself from the danger posed by sex offenders." … We therefore reverse the orders under review and remand the matters to the respective trial courts, which shall conduct hearings on whether appellants currently qualify for the relief provided by subsection (f).

Hitesman v. Bridgeway Inc.

430 N.J. Super. 198 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 2013

Neither the Code of Conduct nor the Statement of Residents’ Rights qualify as “any law or any rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law or any professional code of ethics.” N.J.S.A. 34:19—2(f). … More important, the ANA Code of Ethics establishes no standard regarding the patient care Bridgeway was required to provide to its patients.

Schaefer v. Allstate NJ Ins. Co.

376 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2005

The legislative scheme in N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.6 and -1.7 is directed solely toward providing coverage for bus passengers; clearly plaintiff was not a passenger on defendants' bus. … We also reject USF&G's argument that Sottilare is not entitled to a counsel fee award because she has not yet established her right to a specific amount of MEB.

State v. Sachs

69 N.J. Super. 566 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1961

The testimony referred to was clearly improper. … In the absence of an available objection there exists no basis for appellate review unless the challenged action qualifies as plain error.

Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Department

175 N.J. 244 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 11, 2003

Both experts were found to be qualified to render expert opinions under N.J.R.E. 702 by virtue of their “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Ibid. Dr. … However, courts must not penalize workers suffering from diseases for which science has not yet clearly established causation.

Bromfeld v. Harleysville Insurance Companies

298 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 1997

The Code and statute read together clearly do not anticipate such submission and resubmission ad infinitum. … The soil pressure which itself had been caused by the movement of water over fifty feet from the house (as McNaughton claims) should not, however, constitute “water damage” within the policy exclusions, nor can it be qualified

Times of Trenton Publishing Corp. v. Lafayette Yard Community Development Corp.

183 N.J. 519 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 2005

endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion. *530 [N.J.SA. 10:4-7.] … Lafayette Yard argues that it is a private nonprofit corporation properly established under State law. See N.J.S.A 15A1-1 to - 10.

Matter of Elsub Corp.

66 B.R. 172 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 25, 1986

To establish the requisite liability, Elsub also relies upon language in the February 15, 1984 Agreement pursuant to which Elsub acquired all the outstanding capital stock of PNJ. … Accordingly, contingency as to liability and contingency as to payment are clearly two distinct concepts.

In Re SD

399 N.J. Super. 107 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 20, 2008

and unmistakably established); Fairfield Leasing Corp. v. … Moreover, our state has had a clear and longstanding public policy favoring the immunization of remedial measures from negative inferences. See Szalontai v.

United States v. Undetermined Quantities of an Article of Drug

709 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 1987

Evans’ uncontradicted affidavit establishes that G & W can satisfy neither of these requirements. … This principle has been recognized by several courts and is clearly the present position of the FDA. See, e.g., United States v. 118/100 Tablet Bottles, 662 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D.La. 1987).

In Re Venezia

191 N.J. 259 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 2007

As clearly established in our case law, the Shield Law protects dissemination of information in the news reporting process. … To establish that Cherchi defamed him, Venezia must show that Cherchi stated to Glazer that Venezia was convicted of a crime. See DeAngelis v.

Camden County Beverage Co. v. Blair

46 F.2d 648 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 1930

We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man’s property by reason of offenses committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal … prosecutor elects to waive an indictment, and to file a civil information against the claimants, — that is, civil in form, — can he by this device take, from the proceeding its criminal aspect and deprive the claimants of their immunities

Asbury Park Press, Inc. v. Woolley

33 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 6, 1960

The legally qualified voters of the several counties are given the right under the Constitution to vote for all officers that are elective by the people. N. J. Const., Art. 2, par. 3. … Establishment of a similar vote value for each county for the total of 60 votes would constitute (it is said) exact representation according to the Constitution.

JENNINGS v. EZRICARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2024

NJPLA’s Immunity Provision Although product sellers are subject to liability under the NJPLA, the Act includes an immunity provision “to rescue persons it categorized as ‘product sellers … Thus, the Court rejects EzriCare’s claim of immunity at this time. IV.

HERNDON v. EZRICARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2024

NJPLA’s Immunity Provision Although product sellers are subject to liability under the NJPLA, the Act includes an immunity provision “to rescue persons it categorized as ‘product sellers … Thus, the Court rejects EzriCare’s claim of immunity at this time. IV.

Marcos De Oliveira v. Auto Sport of Newark, Corp.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 2024

To circumstantially establish a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must establish the incident: (1) "ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect" and (2) "was not solely the result of causes other than the product … Div. 1988); see also N.J.R.E. 702 (establishing when expert testimony is permissible and requiring the expert be qualified in his or her respective field).

CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, INC. v. RUTGERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2022

Namely, “N.J.S.A. § 18A:61D- 1 obligates Rutgers to require every student to provide proof of certain vaccinations ...N.J.A.C, § 8:57-6.4, allows Rutgers ‘to establish additional requirements for student immunizations … By requiring students to either be vaccinated or qualify for an exemption from the vaccine, Rutgers strictly abided by the terms of the contract.