Case law

CANGO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 15, 2026

Jan. 5, 2007) (“The [p]laintiff is clearly a member of a protected class in being a female,.”); Marte v. Oliver, No. 20-252, 2020 WL 6544978, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2020) (noting that “Latin[as] . . . … was the less qualified candidate.”

Harry Brainum, Jr., Inc. v. Shore Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc. (In Re Shore Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, Inc.)

18 B.R. 643 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 1982

. -, 102 S.Ct. 1035 , 71 L.Ed.2d 318 (1981), in which the court held that a debtor’s interest in grain, consisting of possession and a minute ownership interest, was sufficient to qualify it as “property of the estate;” In … Congress could not have intended such a result, but clearly did intend to bring all of a debtor’s equitable interests into the estate in order to avoid such a result.

State v. Kareem T. Tillery (079832) (Essex County and Statewide)

238 N.J. 293 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 19, 2019

clearly beyond a preponderance of the evidence ... the defendant's involvement in each and every one of those transactions." … The parties agree that defendant qualified as a "persistent offender" for purposes *885 of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) ; accordingly, he was statutorily eligible for a discretionary extended term.

In Re In-Progress Trace Wire Communication

138 N.J. Super. 404 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 26, 1975

Said carrier shall be immune from civil liability for any assistance rendered to the applicant pursuant to this section. … However, *415 when a trace is combined with a tap the purpose of doing so is to establish the identity of the speakers, as well as the location of the traced telephone.

State v. Butler

32 N.J. 166 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1960

The alleged meagerness of the corroboration is clearly no ground for reversal in view of the settled law in New Jersey that a jury may convict upon the testimony of an accomplice alone. See State v. … But the weight of the corroborative as well as the other testimony was clearly a factual matter for the jury and the effect of the legal error alleged as to Mrs.

Waters v. Township of Galloway

286 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 27, 1995

The trial court ruled the Board of Adjustment's determination immune from attack. … The ordinance also established the process for preliminary and final site plan review. See N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46, -50.

CALABRESE v. TIERNEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2024

Second, Defendant contends that he has qualified immunity for his actions and thus cannot be held liable. … immunity. 1A IV.

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Health v. NORTH JERSEY DIST. WATER SUPPLY COMM.

127 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1974

Abplanalp, a highly qualified expert associated with the engineering firm which had been retained by Passaic Valley and whose report was ultimately approved by North Jersey and the Department, concluded that the best location … It is to be emphasised that the proposed filtration plant is clearly not a new water supply project, for which a new contract might arguably be necessary.

State in Interest of JLA

262 N.J. Super. 78 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1993

s brief are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). *80 However, we agree with J.L.A. that consecutive dispositions are unauthorized by the Code of Juvenile Justice. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-20 to -91. … a period not to exceed 3 years upon such written conditions as the court deems will aid rehabilitation of the juvenile; (4) Transfer custody of the juvenile to any relative or other person determined by the court to be qualified

Debra Dugan v. Tgi Fridays, Inc.

445 N.J. Super. 59 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 2016

prospective consumer or enter into any written consumer contract . . . or display any written . . . notice or sign . . . which includes any provision that violates any clearly … We found that the omission of prices from TGIF's menu qualified as an "affirmative 23 A-3485-14T3 act" under the TCCWNA because that

BROWN v. QUINN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2022

accompanying claim of false imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment, “a plaintiff must establish: (1) that [he] was detained; and (2) that the detention was unlawful.” Id. at 682–83. … Finally, as the Court intends to dismiss the Complaint, the Court declines to decide Defendant Quinn’s qualified immunity claims. IV.

State v. Wormley

305 N.J. Super. 57 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 22, 1997

THE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT’S 1987 CONVICTION FOR ARMED ROBBERY QUALIFIED HIM AS A SECOND GRAVES ACT OFFENDER WHICH WARRANTED THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXTENDED TERM. … “The manner and the way of his testifying clearly made his testimony most credible.” Based upon this assessment of Nelson’s credibility, the judge precluded any cross-examination of Nelson concerning his drug use.

Sarner v. Sarner

62 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 6, 1960

The other bases mentioned above for Sarner's claim of immunity from accountability on his book obligations to the corporations are equally improperly asserted here. … The values attributable to the alleged oral contracts with Business Center and Section 1 depend upon whether they are established in law and fact on the remand.

Emmis Broadcasting Corp. of N.Y. v. East Rutherford Borough

14 N.J. Tax 524 · New Jersey Tax Court · Mar 21, 1995

That being said, I find it hard to believe that two qualified experts really trying to establish true value rather than supporting their client’s adversarial positions would come to conclusions which differed in the final … Plaintiffs expert,testified that future development was clearly the highest and best use.

State v. Rose

112 N.J. 454 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 22, 1988

The prosecutor’s comments were clearly improper in two respects. … We also explained that the indefiniteness of the introductory language in c(4)(c) compelled us to focus on the Legislature’s qualifying language in construing the statute: Quite clearly the introductory language of the provision

Harpell v. Pub. Service Coordinated Transport

35 N.J. Super. 354 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1955

Defendant may not, therefore, find immunization by mere showing of adherence to standards not here pertinent. Yet special conditions or problems may raise corresponding duties, even from common carriers. Rourke v. … Had objection here been made at the time of the charge the trial court would have had the opportunity to make its instruction in this respect comport with its references to the safety glass and to the screens, where it clearly

United States v. Otero

849 F. Supp. 2d 425 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2012

The Court, of course, recognizes that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits one to be qualified as an expert through various means, including study of the literature relating to a field. … Clearly, the evidence will assist the trier of fact to determine a fact in issue, that is, Defendants’ alleged involvement in the May 10, 2010 armed robbery at the Exxon/Tiger Mart in Wayne, New Jersey.

Two Guys from Harrison, Inc. v. Furman

58 N.J. Super. 313 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 27, 1959

Ed. 184 (1912), where the court said, at page 188: “* * * The statute establishes its own category. The question in this court is whether the legislature had power to establish it. … There, the statute under attack provided that not less than 300 qualified voters of a count]' could by petition require the question of free public libraries to be placed upon the ballot.

State v. Fortin

400 N.J. Super. 434 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2008

The sentence maximum is clearly less onerous than the former maximum sentence. … The State advises us, without dispute, that "[t]he facts established during the capital retrial were the same" as those established at the first trial.

CLAUSELL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 15, 2026

Jan. 5, 2007) (“The [p]laintiff is clearly a member of a protected class in being a female,.”); Marte v. Oliver, No. 20-252, 2020 WL 6544978, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2020) (noting that “Latin[as] . . . … was the less qualified candidate.”