Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] Holgate Property Associates v. Township of Howell | 1996/07/29 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The approval of the permit exemption for the operation of a sludge derived product (SDP) site does not require the public-notice procedures, under the Solid Waste Management Act, applicable to the approval of a solid waste facility. However, the DEP should give notice to affected municipalities and consider their public health and safety concerns and zoning and land-use regulations when deciding whether a facility using SDPs will be exempt from permitting requirements. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Eric Womack | 1996/07/25 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Because the language of the order imposing a civil fine on Eric Womack indicates that it may have been intended to be punitive rather than remedial, a remand is required to permit the trial court to determine the nature of the fine. If it is concluded that the civil fine has a punitive purpose, and the State is unable to amend the civil judgment and return the punitive portion of that judgment to Womack, the State will be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause from prosecuting Womack for the same conduct. In addition, that portion of the criminal indictment charging Womack with holding himself out as a medical doctor is dismissed without prejudice because of the States failure to present clearly exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. |
| [New Jersey] State v. G.S. | 1996/07/24 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The trial courts instructions failed to indicate the specific purposes for which the other-crime evidence could be considered. Nonetheless, an examination of all of the testimony and evidence, defense counsels use of the other-crime evidence, and the trial courts cautionary instruction indicates that the jury was not misled into using the other-crime evidence as demonstrating G.S.s criminal propensity. As such, the trial courts instructions did not result in reversible error. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Kristina Burris | 1996/07/24 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The State may use a statement obtained in violation of a defendants right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment and the State privilege against self-incrimination for impeachment purposes so long as the statements were voluntarily made and are trustworthy. |
| [New Jersey] Gantes v. Kason Corporation | 1996/07/23 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Because Georgias policy in enacting its ten-year statute of repose does not give rise to a governmental interest that outweighs New Jerseys substantial interest in deterring the manufacture and distribution of unsafe products within the State, the New Jersey statute of limitations is applicable to this cause of action. |
| [New Jersey] Kubis & Perszyk Associates, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc. | 1996/07/23 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: SYLLABUS Forum-selection clauses in franchise agreements are presumptively invalid, and should not be enforced unless the franchisor can satisfy the burden of proving that such a clause was not imposed on the franchisee unfairly on the basis of the franchisors superior bargaining power. |
| [New Jersey] State of New Jersey v. Florence Hessen | 1996/07/22 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The imposition of a ban on plea bargaining in cases involving violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 does not violate the constitutional separation of powers and does not impermissibly infringe on the powers of the municipal prosecutor to dispose of cases. The prohibition against plea bargaining in municipal court drunk-driving cases includes the offense of allowing or permitting an intoxicated person to drive ones car. |
| [New Jersey] Eagle Fire Protection Corp. v. First Indemnity of America Insurance Company | 1996/07/22 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Eagle Fire Protection Corporation commenced suit within one year of the date that the general contractor, Olsen & Hassold, ceased work under the contract. Complying with the terms of the surety bond between Olsen & Hassold and First Indemnity, Eagle Fire is entitled to judgment against First Indemnity as a matter of law. Eagle Fire is not, however, entitled to an award of attorneys fees. |
| [New Jersey] Ahn v. Kim | 1996/07/18 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The issues of negligence and causation are so interrelated that both issues must be retried, except as to Dr. Cehelyk. In addition, Mrs. Ahns claim for emotional distress was properly dismissed by the trial court. On retrial, Mrs. Ahn is entitled to rely on the statutory presumption of death or refer to the court order declaring Dr. Ahns death to prove any element of her cause of action, including Dr. Ahns death. |
| [New Jersey] Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman | 1996/07/18 | Docket No: SYLLABUS This matter requires a new trial because the jury charge on proximate cause could have confused the jury and led to an unjust result. The retrial must include the issue of defendants negligence but not the Conklins comparative negligence. For legal malpractice cases in which inadequate or inaccurate advice is alleged as a concurrent cause of harm, usual principles of negligence apply, including foreseeability. Because the traditional jury charge on proximate cause as a continuous sequence is unsuitable for legal malpractice cases in which there are concurrent, independent causes of harm, the jury must be instructed to determine whether the negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the ultimate harm. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Aurelio Chenique-Puey | 1996/07/17 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The trial court erred by denying Aurelio Chenique-Pueys motion to sever his indictment for contempt of the domestic violence restraining order and terroristic threats to kill. Evidence of a restraining order obtained by the victim against Chenique-Puey unduly prejudiced Chenique Pueys trial on terroristic threats. |
| [New Jersey] Brennan v. Orban | 1996/07/16 | Docket No: I Because of the divisibility of claims, the public interest in vindicating the policy against domestic violence outweighs in significance the competing State policies that favor resolution in a single proceeding of all family matters in dispute. In such a case, a court should, in the interests of justice, exercise its discretion to afford a jury trial to the victim of a marital tort. |
| [New Jersey] Lyn-Anna Properties, Ltd. v. Harborview Development Corp. | 1996/07/16 | Court: United States Court of Appeals Docket No: SYLLABUS In the circumstances of this case, the fiduciary relationship between the attorney-partner and the counterclaiming partner was sufficiently related to the equitable oversight of the partnership affairs to warrant the retention of jurisdiction of the counterclaim in the Chancery Division. |
| [New Jersey] The Board of Education of Newark v. New Jersey Department of the Treasury, Division of Pensions | 1996/07/15 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The Board of Education of Newark is not entitled to the information it seeks under the Right-To-Know Law. However, the information is subject to disclosure under the common-law right-to-inspect public documents. |
| [New Jersey] Munoz v. New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Underwriting Association Zimmerman v. The New Jersey Automobile Full Insurance Underwriting Associatio | 1996/07/15 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The plain language of the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions permits insurers to send requisite notice of cancellation of insurance in advance of the premium due date. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Louis Abronski | 1996/07/11 | Docket No: SYLLABUS State v. Reed will not be applied retroactively to this case. Therefore, the trial court properly admitted Abronskis confession into evidence. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Curtis Knight | 1996/07/11 | Docket No: SYLLABUS State v. Sanchez applies retroactively to this case. The admission into evidence of Knights statement to his arresting officer violated his state constitutional right to counsel as construed in Sanchez. In addition, the prosecutors failure to disclose certain exculpatory information to Knight violated federal constitutional law. |
| [New Jersey] Prevratil v. Mohr | 1996/07/10 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The entire controversy doctrine applies to actions arising out of automobile-accident cases. Litigants currently involved in negligence litigation shall have time to make a timely application to assert affirmative claims. In all other cases, litigants in automobile-accident cases must assert any affirmative claims in the course of a single litigation. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Oscar Lee Kirk | 1996/07/10 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Oscar Lee Kirk failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was entitled to a waiver of an extended term sentence; therefore, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the prosecutor did not act arbitrarily in declining to waive imposition of an extended term sentence. |
| [New Jersey] State v. Charles E. Gerns | 1996/07/09 | Docket No: SYLLABUS It is neither arbitrary nor capricious for a prosecutor to base his or her decision to recommend a waiver of the mandatory sentence required by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 on the value of the cooperation received from a defendant. |