Case law

Porreca v. City of Millville

419 N.J. Super. 212 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2011

Here, the trial court summarily found Henderson "factually and substantively" distinguishable without describing its holding or clearly identifying the basis for this conclusion. … The employer did not dispute that the plaintiff qualified as a prevailing party but argued the settlement agreement was a "global agreement" extinguishing all of the plaintiff's claims against it, including a claim for attorney's

In Re Mathesius

188 N.J. 496 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 30, 2006

The Advisory Committee’s duties are clearly delineated in our Rules. See R. 2:15-1 to -25 (providing for establishment, staffing, operations, jurisdiction and procedures of Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct). B. … Finally, in the aggregate, that behavior clearly and convincingly establishes “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute[,]” in violation of Rule 2:15-8(a)(6).

Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc.

173 N.J. 76 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 17, 2002

Preliminarily, it is well established that an employee may be bound by an agreement to waive his or her right to pursue a statutory claim in a judicial forum in favor of arbitration. … comparative bargaining positions of landlords and tenants in housing accommodations within many areas of the state are so unequal that tenants are in no position to bargain" and that "an exculpatory clause which purports to immunize

State v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.

247 N.J. Super. 314 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1991

Before us, defendant argues that it seeks an order only with respect to "interrogation of CIBA-GEIGY employees whose acts or omissions the State sought to impute to CIBA-GEIGY for the purpose of establishing corporate criminal … Moreover, most criminal cases filed against a *326 corporation are commenced by complaint or indictment after investigation — corporations do not generally commit "street crimes" — and by then the investigation clearly should

SZEMPLE v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2020

Additionally, it is worth noting that this same immunity applies against these three defendants on Szemple’s state law claims as “a state retains sovereign immunity for all state law … force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

State v. Bruno Gibson (072257)

219 N.J. 227 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 16, 2014

The Law Division found that the State carried its burden of proof to establish that defendant drove while intoxicated. … On the other hand, “clearly with that evidence, there was enough to support the sentence.” Id. at 40, 109 S. Ct. at 290, 102 L. Ed. 2d at 273.

State v. Nesbitt

185 N.J. 504 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 12, 2006

The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection that the expert was not qualified to testify in respect of the defendant’s state of mind. … The hypothetical question should clearly indicate that it is the witness’ opinion that is being sought and that that opinion was formed assuming the facts and circumstances adduced only at trial.

Bayshore Woods, Inc. v. Township of Lower

8 N.J. Tax 546 · New Jersey Tax Court · Nov 5, 1986

“One who claims exemption from a tax must bring himself clearly within the exemption provision.” Container Ring Co. v. Taxation Div. … Nor is there any merit to the argument that the intent of the Legislature was not clearly *556 expressed and should be ascertained by the court from the overall act.

McAdams v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

726 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 1989

Initially, however, it is necessary to take note of the established legal principles which govern the court’s disposition of these issues. … impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months____” 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A). 3 Under this defini *587 tion, a claimant qualifies

LIBERTARIANS FOR TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT, ETC. VS. CUMBERLAND COUNTY (L-0609-18, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 4, 2020

Ungaro, however, is clearly distinguishable as the GRC ruled only that Dover's reliance on a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement between the municipality and its business administrator, would not protect the … A-1661-18T2 28 qualify as a public record under the common law, and that Libertarians can likely establish an interest in the subject matter of that agreement. See Educ.

State v. Dancyger

29 N.J. 76 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 2, 1959

In our opinion the above proofs clearly made the question of whether the defendant was guilty of larceny one for the determination of the jury and it was for them, rather than for the court, to decide whether the evidence … Hence, the defendant can only prevail if that part of the charge *90 qualifies as plain error. Ii. B. 1:5-l(a). In State v.

State v. United States Steel Corp.

22 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 4, 1956

The indication is clearly to the contrary. See N. J. S. 2A :37-33. The distinction is fundamental where the derivative concept is applicable. … The recommendations of the Attorney-General in establishing a standard of compensation have also received our attention. We agree with that official that the scale “must be applied in a flexible manner.”

State v. Halsey

340 N.J. Super. 492 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 2001

A look at the facts of this case clearly show that the officer's observation gave him a qualified suspicion, if not probable cause, and I so find it was probable cause, that a motor vehicle infraction occurred, therefore, … However, the burden to establish such a claim "is a demanding one." Ibid.

Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. P.D. Oil & Chemical Storage, Inc.

627 F. Supp. 1074 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 1986

Instead, defendant broadly asserts that all of its permit violations qualify as upsets. EPA’s regulations do not permit this type of blanket defense. … It reflects the regulatory structure established by the Act.

Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. AT & T Bell Laboratories

617 F. Supp. 1190 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 1985

Does the use of the present tense, “in violation”, mean that past violations are immunized from citizen suit enforcement? … To hold that DMRs and NCRs are adequate to establish liability does not mean they are conclusive proof.

New Brunswick Mun. Emps. Ass'n v.

453 N.J. Super. 408 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 2, 2018

Before PERC, the Association argued N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1 established a ceiling for retiree contributions for health care coverage based on the sliding scale established in N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c. … Moreover, neither party has contended the City designed its health benefit plans with contribution rates differing from those of N.J.S.A. 52:14-17.28c so as to qualify for treatment under N.J.S.A. 40A:10-21.1(c).

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2022

Takeda invoked the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, see id. at *9, which extends First Amendment protection and immunity from antitrust liability to “[t]hose who petition [the] government for redress,” Pro. Real Est. … “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning,” and it “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.”

Interchange State Bank v. Rinaldi

303 N.J. Super. 239 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1997

The collateral provision in plaintiffs guaranty clearly qualifies as “unequivocal” measured by the Langeveld standard. … However, defendants’ allegation that plaintiff violated the provisions of the Bank Holding Company Act are legally insufficient to establish the necessary elements of the claimed cause of action.

Maher v. NJ TRANS. RAIL OPERATIONS

239 N.J. Super. 213 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 1990

New Jersey clearly has an interest in regulating employment discrimination. Jansen v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc., 110 N.J. 363, 373 , 541 A. 2d 682 (1988); Fuchilla v. … Plaintiff insists he did not report to work at the Third Trick Trouble Desk because he was not qualified and because wearing of safety glasses created a new hazard for him inasmuch as the side vents eliminated his peripheral

Saldana v. Michael Weinig, Inc.

337 N.J. Super. 35 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 31, 2001

The authentication of a photograph requires verification by a qualified individual, one who has made personal observations, thereby establishing that the conditions reproduced existed at the time of the accident. Ibid. … Here, plaintiff clearly advanced his position that the photograph should be admitted without depicting the warning sticker.