Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Al Tabei v. Bally's Park Place, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2026

Plaintiffs did not qualify to work at the saloon. … Here, under the first McDonnell Douglas prong, plaintiffs are clearly members of a protected class based on their age.

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.

SUKETU H. NANAVATI, M.D. VS. CAPE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER SUKETU H. NANAVATI, M.D. VS. CAPE REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, D/B/A CAPE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (C-000078-16 AND L-4126-17, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 19, 2020

. §§ 11111(a)(2) and 11151(9), immunized defendants from any action taken adverse to Nanavati. … In deciding whether to grant a request for adjournment, a court assesses a number of well-established factors. See State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522, 538 (2011).

Wallace, Muller & Co. v. Leber

69 N.J.L. 312 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 20, 1903

The question in the present case was whether the defendants’ contract with the plaintiffs was an absolute agreement of indemnity, or whether it was a qualified undertaking conditioned upon the performance by Bunge & Company … This ruling of the learned justice was clearly right. The contract of sale covered three general subjects—(1) the sale by Bunge.& Company of four thousand bags of sugar, described as “Dutch Granulated Sugar, W. S.

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.

New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

76 N.J.L. 664 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 1909

Glair County case,. if the court had understood that former cases had defínitéty established the proposition that interstate transportation of all kinds, whether known as ferries' or otherwise, was immune from any state requirement … Calvert, on page 207 of his book upon that subject/remarks: “The extent of the power of states to authorize and regulate ferries has not been clearly determined.

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

Rogers v. Exxon Research and Engineering Company

404 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 1975

(Tr. 5/17/75: 32-33) It is the Court’s view that the ADEA essentially establishes a new statutory tort. … It is clearly the former which is at issue here.

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.”).

Baylor v. Dept. of Human Services

235 N.J. Super. 22 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1989

The legislative history of that statute leaves little doubt that the child support disregard was established to encourage AFDC recipients to assist the state in establishing paternity and collecting child support. … The legislative history of that statute leaves little doubt that the child support disregard was established to encourage AFDC recipients to assist the state in *43 establishing paternity and collecting child support.

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

In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of P.J.M.'s Application for a Permit to Carry a Handgun, Etc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 22, 2026

Constitutional issues are not immune from this principle. State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364, 383 (2012). … This evidence was clearly not hearsay.

Toll Bros. v. Planning Board

359 N.J. Super. 448 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 17, 2003

Preliminary approval is intended to give a landowner or a potential developer the right to rely on the terms and conditions established at the time of preliminary approval. … But clearly that is the purpose of the *455 extensions authorized under subsections c, d, e and f. Subsection b, too, does not repeat the protective provisions set forth in subsection a.