Case law

State v. Gerald

113 N.J. 40 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 25, 1988

Jason, the Medical Examiner, provided testimony directed at establishing aggravating factor (4)(c), and Investigator Bolis testified to the robbery and confession to establish the felony-murder factor. … The trial court held that “clearly he had not * * * requested an attorney.

Mineur v. Commissioner

246 N.J. Super. 109 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1991

The amended version was enacted, and it reads: For the purpose of providing moneys necessary to establish the recovery fund in an amount sufficient to meet the requirements of the act, the commissioner shall establish reasonable … We have considered the remaining contentions raised and find that they are clearly without merit. R. 2:ll-3(e)(l)(D). We affirm the adoption of N.J.A.

Goerke Kirch Co. v. Goerke Kirch Holding Co.

118 N.J. Eq. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 4, 1935

Its jurisdiction rests upon and is limited by well established principles; otherwise, there could be no certainty or fixity of right and remedy — its functioning would be attended with uncertainty and consequent confusion … The arbitration provision was clearly of the essence and substance of the contract.

Gabriel Jimenez v. Board of Review

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 2023

During his Tribunal hearing, he testified that given his mother's weakened immune system, he "preemptively" quit his job because there was no effective treatment or vaccine for COVID-19 at the time. … Based on the record before us, we are convinced Jimenez's situation does not qualify for PUA benefits under the CARES Act.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ADAM J. MCCARRAHER (15-11-0929, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 2019

The basis for the argument is that the detective was never properly qualified. … Like the defendants in Lopez and J.S., this defendant was clearly placed on notice of the offense.

Besler v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF W. WINDSOR

201 N.J. 544 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 2010

Clearly, Dr. Bynum and other Board members were the final policymakers for the Board of Education. … Clearly, Besler was not a cheerleader of the Board; he was a critic of its policies and actions. Dr.

Diaz v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

893 F. Supp. 358 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 28, 1995

. *372 Plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the expert’s testimony is admissible. Daubert, — U.S. at - n. 10, 113 S.Ct. at 2796 n. 10 (citing Bourjaily v. … “A cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists.” Ferebee v.

O.T. Ex Rel. Turton v. Frenchtown Elementary School District Board of Education

465 F. Supp. 2d 369 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 2006

Instead, the record clearly shows that the performance was open to the entire Frenchtown community. … regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Borough of Merchantville v. Malik & Son, LLC

429 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 5, 2013

Due to continued deteriorating conditions on the property, the Borough again directed the Board in 2010 to conduct an investigation to determine whether the property qualified as an area in need of redevelopment. … We are not convinced there are unique circumstances here warranting a deviation from established principles.

State v. Hotel Bar Foods, Inc.

18 N.J. 115 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 21, 1955

That was entitled “An Act to establish a uniform standard of weights and measures in this State, to establish a department of weights and measures, and to provide penalties for the use of other than standard or legal weights … The license and bond requirements governing warehousemen qualifying under the Federal Warehouse Act have *127 been adopted by a considerable group of states.

C. B. Snyder Realty Co. v. National Newark & Essex Banking Co.

14 N.J. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 1953

Society for Establishing Useful Mfrs., 2 N. J. 136, 150-152 (1949). The affidavit of Mr. Alfred .Q. … There is clearly evidence in his depositions an effort to qualify the extent of his exact authority, but there is adequate recitation of facts to determine that it was demonstrated “palpably” that there was a genuine issue

COUSAR v. MORGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 2022

Plaintiff argues when Defendant Ciacci applied for the arrest warrant he did not establish probable cause. (Id., ¶ 61.) … App’x. at 171–72 (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendants in false arrest § 1983 case on basis of probable cause and qualified immunity where warrant “appears on its face to be valid.”).

Rudikoff v. BYRNE

101 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 6, 1968

The policy of our State to provide a source of recovery for injured plaintiffs is clearly established under the provisions of our Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund. … As to the third element, clearly it is not plaintiff's fault that defendant has escaped service.

Francis v. United Jersey Bank

87 N.J. 15 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 1, 1981

Generally directors are accorded broad immunity and are not insurers of corporate activities. … If one “feels that he has not had sufficient business experience to qualify him to perform the duties of a director, he should either acquire the knowledge by inquiry, or refuse to act.” Ibid.

RICHARDSON v. EZRICARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 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.

Creech v. McVaugh

140 N.J. Eq. 272 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Jul 18, 1947

January 18th, 1943, his brother, William Creech, was appointed administrator in his place and, having qualified, took over possession of the decedent's real estate and began to collect the rents. … Rep. 519 , pointed out that in construing a will and a codicil, "`* * * it is an established rule not to disturb the dispositions of the will further than *Page 277 is absolutely necessary for the purpose of giving effect

Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Rose

134 N.J. 326 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 29, 1993

Clearly, as earlier noted, supra at 346, 634 A.2d at 84 , Commonwealth was acutely aware of the peril. … Those concerns therefore clearly call for further and more extensive consideration.

Wilson v. Bernstock

195 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2002

In the Third Circuit, a plaintiff may establish the requisite strong inference of fraudulent intent in one of two ways: (1) “by alleging facts establishing a motive and an opportunity to commit fraud”; or (2) “by setting … It is by now well-established that such allegations, standing alone, are clearly be insufficient .to support a strong inference of intent to defraud.

State v. Savage

172 N.J. 374 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 2002

The trial court refused to *396 do so, finding that criminal restraint was “precluded” because there was “clearly a death here.” … As defined by N.J.S.A 2C:l-8d, an offense is “included” if: (1) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged; or (2) It consists of an attempt

Woodland Private Study Group v. State of NJ

616 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 1985

It is well established that a federal civil rights action may not be brought against a state or a department or agency of a state unless the state waives its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … The State of New Jersey has neither expressly nor impliedly waived its immunity so as to permit this lawsuit against the DEP.