Case law

Emily Martin v. Board of Review

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 22, 2025

evidence to support the findings on which the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly … An individual who does not have enough wages in the base year to qualify for unemployment benefits may use an "alternative base year," N.J.A.C. 12:17 - 5.2, defined as either "the last four completed calendar quarters immediately

In Re Petti

36 N.J. 146 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 20, 1961

The attempt was to create the form, evade the substance and by this subterfuge qualify Miss Petti for the examination. … The diary does not clearly support much of such activity and one has to conclude it was not extensive. In any event, I fail to see how it could cure the basic infection.

Life Ins. Co. of No. America v. De Chiaro

68 N.J. Super. 93 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 1961

De Chiaro could not have qualified for the standard policy he applied for because his weight and blood pressure exceeded the norms then established by the plaintiff for men of his age and build. … One cannot quarrel with this decision, since the application was clearly rejected by the company in the lifetime of the applicant who never accepted a substitute policy.

Helmsley v. Borough of Fort Lee

362 F. Supp. 581 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 1973

If Congress is authorized to act in a field, it should manifest its intention clearly. … Of what value is the HUD exemption when it is qualified as has been indicated ?

ABREU v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 8, 2023

Petitioner’s underlying crime thus clearly qualifies as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. Id. Neither Borden nor McCormack alters this conclusion. … Petitioner was not charged with that offense, and was clearly not sentenced above the statutory maximum in this case.

Homa v. American Express Co.

496 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2007

Indeed, Utah law “enables parties to freely contract, establishing terms and allocating risks between them ... … Cash Advance of Ga., LLC, 400 F.3d 868, 878 (11th Cir.2005) ("[Precluding class action relief will not have the practical effect of immunizing [defendants].

State v. Carter

85 N.J. 300 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 3, 1981

Defense counsel contend that had they known at the time of trial that which they came to know only after the trial, that is, that the lie detector report meant the *310 opposite of what it clearly said, they would have turned … This Court has stated repeatedly that to qualify as newly discovered evidence entitling a party to a new trial, the new evidence must be (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory;

RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N-1 v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

981 F. Supp. 334 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 1997

This was clearly enunciated in Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Coop., Inc., 356 U.S. 525 , 78 S.Ct. 893 , 2 L.Ed.2d 953 (1958), which thereby tempered the scope of the outcome determinative test. … It must be noted that RTC has not suggested that Rules 8, 9, or 11 are unconstitutional or outside the boundaries established by the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 .

Renaissance Plaza Associcates v. City of Atlantic City

18 N.J. Tax 342 · New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 26, 1998

The lease in this case clearly contemplates that Renaissance would be responsible for all taxes on the property. See, Lease Agreement of April 17, 1995 §§ 6.01, 7.03. … This is clearly the law. In N.J. Turnpike Auth. v.

Handleman v. Cox

74 N.J. Super. 316 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 18, 1962

Evaluating the evidence in the posture in which it stood at the conclusion of plaintiff's case, Handleman did not qualify as an invitee at the moment of his fall. … Moreover, the pretrial *336 order clearly reflects this basic dispute.

Anthony v. Fritts

45 N.J.L. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1883

Eyre, 9 Cl. & Fin. 1, 45, Lord Cottenham very clearly declares the grounds on which courts, of equity, in matters of this nature, base their action. … His statement is this: “ But although all the grantors were principals as between them and the grantees, yet as between themselves some of them might be sureties for others; and if it was established that such was the case

State v. Sims

65 N.J. 359 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 16, 1974

In granting a new trial on this basis-the trial judge was clearly in error. … The record of the trial, once considered immune from collateral attack, Riddle v. Dyche, 262 U. S. 333, 336 , 43 S. Ct. 555 , 67 L.

E.B. v. Division of Medical Assistance & Health Services

431 N.J. Super. 183 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2013

with the policy and procedures so established. … generally and uniformly to all similarly situated persons; (3) is designed to operate only on future cases, that is, prospectively; (4) prescribes a legal standard or directive that is not otherwise expressly provided by or clearly

MELODY N. VILLANUEVA-ARROYO VS. HOUSING A-3896-19 AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PASSAIC (L-0974-15, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2021

Here, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie claim under CEPA. … Here, plaintiff is clearly an at-will employee.

MENDEZ VALLEJO v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 27, 2021

The Westfall Act provides absolute immunity to federal employees in the wake of Westfall v. … This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2).

SEALE v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2022

Thus, after Davis, a crime will only qualify as an underlying crime of violence for a § 924(c) charge where it meets the elements clause of § 924(c). Jd. … Clearly, Petitioner could have raised a vagueness challenge in earlier proceedings, and the Government thus may be correct that the claim in question is technically defaulted.

Fried v. Aftec, Inc.

246 N.J. Super. 245 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 25, 1991

While the parties each claim that its version of the profitability figures was correct, that issue was clearly before the jury. … The jury responded affirmatively to the first interrogatory question: "Did the plaintiff comply with the subject contract so as to qualify for a cash bonus?"

Lepis v. Lepis

83 N.J. 139 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1980

Therefore, once a prima facie case is established, tax returns or other financial information should be ordered. … While the supported spouse need not completely deplete savings to qualify for increased support, see Capodanno v.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. Casino Control Commission (In Re Elsinore Shore Associates)

66 B.R. 723 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 1986

The Penn Terra court established that the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s environmental laws was clearly an exercise of the state’s police and regulatory power as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(4). … Clearly, In re Greenwald is distinguishable from the case presently before the court.

Borough of Caldwell v. Cozzarelli Cirminiello Architects, LLC

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 2025

Stated another way, CCA contends that since Caldwell adhered to, for years, its own clearly defined process to approve CCA's invoices, and because those approvals were ratified by the duly elected Caldwell governing body … We consider the threshold question from Macedo: Do architects qualify as a learned profession requiring extensive knowledge?