Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] D.C. VS F.R. | 1996/01/23 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to 33) was designed to protect victims of domestic violence and to provide uniformity in prosecuting and adjudicating such claims. When the Act was originally adopted, it offered no protection to individuals subjected to violent acts by persons whom they had merely dated. In 1994, the Act was amended to cover victims of domestic violence who had engaged in a dating relationship with the offender. L. 1994, c. 93, 1. The principal question presented in this case is whether the Act may be applied to remedy pre-amendment acts of violence having their origin in a dating relationship. We hold that the amendment substantially altered the scope of the Act by expanding the class of persons eligible for protection under it and thus should be applied only prospectively. However, we also conclude that where an act of domestic violence arising out of a dating relationship has occurred after the effective date of the amendment, the prior history of domestic violence between the parties may be considered by the trial court in determining the appropriate injunctive or monetary remedy. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] DAVID FACENDO V. S.M.S. CONCAST INC | 1996/01/19 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none In a product liability case tried to a jury, the heeding presumption must be charged where the issue of proximate cause of the failure to warn remains in issue. In the present case, because the risk of explosion could not be avoided and because plaintiff could transfer to another position, a proper and adequate jury charge should advise the jury, without reference to presumptions, that it may, for the purposes of its deliberations, infer that if a proper warning of the danger of the use of the product were provided, it would be heeded. In this regard, the jury should consider the evidence that plaintiff was afforded a meaningful choice with respect to avoiding the risk of injury. Furthermore, the instruction must add that in the event the jury finds from the evidence that plaintiff knew of the extent of the danger and failed to take reasonable measures to safeguard himself in the face of the known danger, that the inference would not be available. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] VIVIAN COLANTINO V. FRANCISCO ARANGO | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Attorney neglect in failing to file a timely notice for a trial de novo within thirty days of an automobile arbitration award pursuant to R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deny a party's motion to confirm the award - regardless of whether the award exceeds defendant's insurance policy limits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TONJA SWAIN V. DIONNE SPANN | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Attorney neglect in failing to file a timely notice for a trial de novo within thirty days of an automobile arbitration award pursuant to R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deny a party's motion to confirm the award - regardless of whether the award exceeds defendant's insurance policy limits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JUANITA RIVERA V. JOSE QUINTANA | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Attorney neglect in failing to file a timely notice for a trial de novo within thirty days of an automobile arbitration award pursuant to R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deny a party's motion to confirm the award - regardless of whether the award exceeds defendant's insurance policy limits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ANTONIO MARTINS V. ROLANDO CRUZ, JR. | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Attorney neglect in failing to file a timely notice for a trial de novo within thirty days of an automobile arbitration award pursuant to R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deny a party's motion to confirm the award - regardless of whether the award exceeds defendant's insurance policy limits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CHARLES BEHM V. JOAQUIM FERREIRA | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Attorney neglect in failing to file a timely notice for a trial de novo within thirty days of an automobile arbitration award pursuant to R. 4:21A-6(b)(1) does not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to deny a party's motion to confirm the award - regardless of whether the award exceeds defendant's insurance policy limits. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT G.B. | 1996/01/18 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Registrant's application for judicial review of notification and Tier designation under Megan's Law did not require representation by the Office of the Public Defender. Registrant was represented by experienced court appointed counsel. That is sufficient. The prosecutor advanced no reasons for the two mile geographical area from registrant's residence and work place for notification to community organizations and schools likely to encounter registrant. We remand for the prosecutor to establish guidelines for the scope of notification. In light of the circumstances surrounding the offense, registrant should have been permitted to retain an expert and present testimony showing that the variable factors as related to him should result in a lesser Tier classification. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TOWNSHIP OF ABERDEEN V. PATROLMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 163 | 1996/01/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none This appeal presents a novel question under the Compulsory Interest Arbitration Act (N.J.S.A. 34:13A-14-21). The Act and its implementing regulations permit a mediator in a public employment dispute to serve as the arbitrator in the event that mediation efforts are not successful. N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16a and f(3); N.J.A.C. 19:16-5.7(b). We hold that information learned by an arbitrator during the mediation process but not presented at the arbitration hearing may not be considered by the arbitrator in rendering the final decision. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] DELISHA KEMP, A MINOR, BY PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, DEBRA WRIGHT AND DEBRA WRIGHT IN HER OWN RIGHT V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, RI | 1996/01/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 and N.J.S.A. 26:11-12 (repealed after the causes of action here accrued) provide immunity to State and local officials from a claim of negligence during a screening examination in connection with a 1975 free rubella vaccination clinic during which plaintiff claims that no inquiries were made as to whether she was then pregnant and no warning given as to the adverse consequences of a vaccination upon her then unborn child who was later born with serious birth defects. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] HUNTERDON COUNTY POLICEMEN'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION LOCAL 188 V. TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN | 1996/01/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Bills to a municipality for the services of attorneys, arbitrators, or other professionals are subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. They are not protected from disclosure by general application of the attorney-client privilege, but the right to disclosure may be subject to a waiver/estoppel defense. Counterclaims for breach of contract (collective bargaining agreement) and fraud in the inducement have independent significance and should not have been dismissed as moot. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] THE HOME NEWS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF SPOTSWOOD | 1996/01/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A set of working documents compiled to assist board of education members in the budget planning process is not subject to disclosure under either the Right-to-Know Law or the common law right of access, notwithstanding that some of the documents in the compilation and the ultimate work product (the budget) are subject to disclosure. A compilation of working papers is not a record required by law to be made, maintained or kept on file, N.J.S.A. 47:1A-2; nor is it within the definition of a public record under the common law right to access. Also, plaintiff did not satisfy its burden in the common law balancing process of overcoming the important public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the budget planning process. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CARMINE CERMINARA V. TERESA CERMINARA | 1996/01/17 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Under the Cooper standard as modified by Holder v. Polanski, defendant, as main caregiver, has demonstrated by competent evidence a good faith reason for the move, namely that she would be happier in Virginia; she would have greater opportunities and family nearby; and the move would serve the children's best interests. Plaintiff has not proven that in a mobile society the children's move to Virginia would unreasonably affect his relationship with them, especially since he was awarded a generous visitation schedule. The trial judge also appropriately applied the factors in the statute and made adequate fact findings to award defendant permanent alimony. Despite professional training, defendant has been out of the workplace raising the children for the duration of the marriage and her prospects for earning a salary capable of preserving her present lifestyle are limited. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ANGELICA JIMENEZ V. GNOC CORP | 1996/01/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where expert testimony fails to establish facts to explain an alleged malfunction of an escalator or to specify any negligent acts or omissions, other than lack of preventive maintenance, establishing a causal connection between the malfunction and the injury to plaintiff, such testimony constitutes a net opinion, and a judgment of involuntary dismissal in favor of defendants was proper. Moreover, where a plaintiff attempts to rely upon res ipsa loquitur, detailed expert testimony is required to establish that defendants' alleged failure to perform preventive maintenance was responsible for an accident in which the escalator handrail allegedly stopped while the steps continued to rise; a net opinion is inadequate to guide the jury in determining whether the incident occurred, more likely than not, as a result of defendants' negligence. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CLINTON BRYANT V. CHARLES CALATONE, D.D.S. | 1996/01/16 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none In health care malpractice cases, comparative negligence, avoidable consequences, and proximate cause are interwoven and dependent upon events that occur over time. When the defense of patient fault is asserted, the patient's conduct must be apportioned over three temporal periods in determining whether the patient shares any fault, and if so, what principles of law apply to that fault. Where the patient's fault occurs, as here, after the negligence of the defendant, the doctrine of avoidable consequences applies, not comparative negligence. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] SUN CO, INC. V. ZNG BD OF ADJ OF BORO OF AVALON | 1996/01/12 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Combining two individually permitted principal uses on one lot is prohibited, unless the ordinance specifically allows it. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. DONALD LOFTIN | 1996/01/12 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none If defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence which includes a second degree crime that is consecutive to his sentence for murder, and the State is successful in its cross-appeal from an improper merger of first degree robbery into his murder conviction, defendant may be resentenced for the robbery - notwithstanding that his aggregate sentence will be increased. R. 1:16-1, restricting interviews with jurors, is constitutional. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ELLEN FRANCEY V. BD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF SALEM | 1996/01/09 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Endorsement on a RIF'd school teacher's teaching certificate obtained after the date of the RIF does not broaden teacher's preferred reemployment rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-12. Those rights are determined as of the date of the RIF. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] BUILDERS LEAGUE OF SOUTH JERSEY V. BORO OF PINE HILL | 1996/01/09 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none N.J.S.A. 40:52-1.2, which requires the payment of real estate taxes as a condition for the issuance of a license or permit, applies to mercantile licenses and permits. The section does not confer upon the municipality the power to require payment of taxes as a condition for the issuance of a building permit. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] TOWER CENTER ASSOCS V. TWP OF EAST BRUNSWICK | 1996/01/08 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Taxpayer's failure to contest or comply with request for information under N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 precludes plenary consideration of tax appeal from assessment, and taxpayer is entitled only to remedy provided under Ocean Pines Ltd. v. Borough of Point Pleasant, 112 N.J. 1 (1988), even if the assessor's request is overly broad or unreasonable. Click here to get this docume |