Case law

State v. Burks

208 N.J. Super. 595 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 14, 1986

Unfortunately, however, he later qualified this statement by saying: "[w]hat I have just said applies only if you find that Mr. Neal did, in fact, fire his rifle in the direction of the defendants...." … This mistake in the charge was clearly capable of producing an unjust result and requires a new trial. R. 2:10-2. The trial court made a second error in the charge with regard to self-defense.

United States Ex Rel. PCC Construction, Inc. v. Star Insurance

90 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2000

The issue of whether PCC qualifies as a “subcontractor” under the Miller Act is governed by federal law. See F.D. Rich Co., Inc. v. United States ex rel. … (See generally Agreement) Thus focusing solely upon the language in the Agreement, it would appear that PCC qualifies as a subcontractor under the Miller Act.

State v. VON CLEEF

102 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1968

Chernus, a qualified psychiatrist, who testified that many of the publications seized and introduced into evidence were patently offensive because they affronted contemporary community standards, appealed to the prurient … Preliminarily, it is necessary to establish a framework for dealing with the first two contentions.

ESTATE OF FRANK P. LAGANO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2023

She also found that dismissal was appropriate on sovereign and qualified immunity grounds. (See D.E. 27, 42.) … However, it fails to establish that Mordaga’s comment was the “but for” cause of Lagano’s death.

Paterson Tallow Co. v. Royal Globe Insurance Companies

89 N.J. 24 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 1982

In Lind we emphasized that a malicious prosecution plaintiff must establish each element set forth above, including the “favorable termination” requirement. … IV We hold that for the purpose of determining the existence of coverage under this type of policy, in the absence of any *37 qualifying exclusion or exception the offense of malicious prosecution occurs on the date when

State v. Judge of the Circuit Court

50 N.J.L. 585 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1888

The enactment clearly and expressly prohibited the sale of liquors, and that purpose was not manifest in the title. Mr. Justice Dixon, in State v. … Society, 4 Zab. 385, 395, this distinction is clearly presented by Chief Justice Green.

State v. Apprendi

159 N.J. 7 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1999

What I have tried to establish' — and all that I need to establish — is that on the basis of our jurisprudence to date, the answer to the constitutional question is not clear. … It is the Court’s burden, on the other hand, to establish that its constitutional answer shines forth clearly from our cases.

Hunterdon Med. v. Readington Tp.

416 N.J. Super. 127 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 31, 2010

As a consequence of his analysis, the judge again found that HMC had failed to meet its burden of establishing that the PT Service qualified for a tax exemption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. This appeal followed. III. … It did so, initially providing both in-patient and out-patient services that clearly fit within the hospital's core purposes.

State v. Cross

330 N.J. Super. 516 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 5, 2000

the offense, or (2) the law provides that the state of merit established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. … The conduct that the Legislature deemed to be a second degree offense is clearly deplorable and should be punished.

Varnum v. Camp

13 N.J.L. 326 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 15, 1833

Kent, while maintaining with his wonted strength, an extension of the rule of international law, which he afterwards in his commentaries admits is inconsistent with the weight of American authority, 2 Com. 330, steadily qualifies … For it is clearly the duty of every state to keep its religion and morals pure, and its institutions entire.” In Edmondstone v.

Roth v. Rutherford Rent Board

239 N.J. Super. 378 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 31, 1989

Courts must refrain from usurping the legislative body when its intent is clearly expressed. Tewksbury Tp. v. … This is clearly erroneous in light of the fact finding in Litt, supra, at 459, 483 A.2d 239 .

OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS v. GREWAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2020

Lightfoot, however, the Supreme Court more clearly defined the parameters of the State’s powers over its subdivisions. 364 U.S. 339 (1960). … The Directive is clearly not field preempted by the INA.

Passaic County Probation Officers' Ass'n v. County of Passaic

73 N.J. 247 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 16, 1977

It was clearly implicit that the process we were there upholding was not in violation of this Court’s exclusive control over rules of administration. See also Pros., Del., Essex Cty. v. Hudson Bd. … Salisbury, supra, was the Court speaking of constitutional intent concerning immunity of court rules from overriding legislation. The subject matter there was rules regulating practice and procedure.

In Re: Petition for Referendum to Repeal Ordinance 2354-12 of the Tp. of West Orange(073069)

223 N.J. 589 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 21, 2015

particular, plaintiffs claimed that the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law 5 did not exempt this bond ordinance from a referendum and that the petition contained a sufficient number of qualifying … We begin by noting that West Orange Ordinance 2354-12 clearly provides for the issuance of redevelopment bonds pursuant to the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law and related Local Bond Law.

Hopple v. Higbee

23 N.J.L. 342 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1852

Upon the mere question of compensation, the distinction sought to be established is without foundation. … But there are exceptions and qualifications of this rule, as plain and well established as the rule itself.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR MEDICINAL MARIJUANA ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT CENTER FOR PANGAEA HEALTH AND WELLNESS, LLC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 2020

N.J.S.A. 24:6I-2(e).1 To qualify, a patient must suffer from one of the enumerated conditions or from any condition the Department establishes as debilitating. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-3. … This includes establishing a registry of qualified patients and issuing permits for the operation of Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs). N.J.S.A. 24:6I-4; N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1; Natural Med., 428 N.J.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR MEDICINAL MARIJUANA ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT CENTER FOR PANGAEA HEALTH AND WELLNESS, LLC. (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 25, 2020

N.J.S.A. 24:6I-2(e).1 To qualify, a patient must suffer from one of the enumerated conditions or from any condition the Department establishes as debilitating. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-3. … This includes establishing a registry of qualified patients and issuing permits for the operation of Alternative Treatment Centers (ATCs). N.J.S.A. 24:6I-4; N.J.S.A. 24:6I-7.1; Natural Med., 428 N.J.

Williams v. State

186 N.J. 368 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 19, 2006

Those statutes clearly establish that the probation department is under the authority and part of the judiciary. … Against the backdrop of those clearly enunciated judiciary policies, the Legislature passed into law the Probation Officer Community Safety Unit Act.

State v. Vogt

341 N.J. Super. 407 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 2001

[T]he area can clearly be labeled as secluded. There is only one road that leads into Higbee Beach and the area is not easily accessible through neighboring property. … Notwithstanding its upholding of the validity of the ordinance, the court held that the ordinance could not be enforced on Higbee Beach, a site that "is state-owned and regulated and therefore immune from local control under

GITTENS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 18, 2026

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … That Plaintiff filed grievances, reviewed and answered by persons not clearly specified, is not sufficient to support an inference of sufficient discriminatory animus.