Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF EXPUNGEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL RECORD OF M.D.Z. | 1995/12/14 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32 provides only for the expungement of all records relating to convictions and charges for crimes and other specified offenses. There is no provision for expungement of records relating to civil matters. Where a domestic incident resulted in complaints in civil matters - a domestic violence proceeding and a matrimonial action - as well as criminal charges for terroristic threat and unlawful possession of a firearm and related apparatus, and all were eventually dismissed, the only records subject to expungement are those relating to the criminal charges. The civil case records are protected by the confidentiality provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-33 (last paragraph), but are not subject to expungement. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. DANIEL PASTERICK, JR. | 1995/12/14 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The passion of assailant aroused as the result of injuries inflicted on him by his victim's attempting to defend himself is insufficient to reduce the assailant's culpability for the resulting homicide to passion/provocation manslaughter. A psychiatrist testifying as an expert witness may not, in the guise of explaining the basis for his psychiatric opinions, relate his version of the contested facts of the case garnered from his ex parte investigations and, on the basis of this record, it was improper for the expert witness to express his opinion that the defendant was a liar. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. REGINALD JORDAN | 1995/12/14 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Defendant was indicted and convicted for knowing and purposeful murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1), (2)); attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(3)); robbery in the first degree (N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1); and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a). Without objection, the trial court did not instruct the jury in accordance with State v. Hampton, 61 N.J. 250 (1972) and State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400 (1957). That failure, in the context of this matter, does not constitute plain error. Judge Pressler dissents. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] PEDRO CALDERON V. MACHINEFABRIEK BOLLEGRAAF ET AL | 1995/12/14 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where an employer has blowtorched and ground away a protective grate and required an employee to service a machine in which long spike-like bars descended, the employer might have been held responsible beyond workers' compensation remedies for an intentional injury to an employee whose arm was amputated by the machine, if such a claim had been made. The manufacturer and servicing distributer, however, were not liable for a failure to warn. The heeding presumption can be rebutted by the facts of the case to show that an employer would not have followed a distributer's advice to restore the interlocked safety grate, even if such advice had been given. When the facts are so one-sided, the court may take the issue from the jury. Similarly, the facts could rebut the presumption that the injured employee, who already knew of the danger, would have refused to service the machine while it was running if the manufacturer had given more adequate warnings. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JANET ANN COFFEY V. CATHLEEN COFFEY | 1995/12/12 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The nature and extent of any trustee's duties and powers are determined by the terms of the trust and general rules of law governing trusts and trustees. Those powers are not enlarged, especially in respect of an irrevocable trust, by the fact that the trustee is also the settlor of the trust and the parent of the beneficiaries. The parent/settlor of an irrevocable trust may be removed and replaced as trustee after acting at variance with the terms of the trust or general rules of law, or engaging in conduct that is self-serving or contrary to the best interests and legitimate expectations of the beneficiaries as defined in the trust instrument. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION; AMERICAN HOME FOODS, INC., AYERST LABORATORIES, INC., AYERST-WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SHERWOOD MEDICAL COMPAN | 1995/12/11 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Stay of New Jersey proceedings in favor of first-filed New York action on comity grounds denied because of existence of special equities favoring retention of jurisdiction in New Jersey. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] JOHNSON & JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL CO. V. AETNA CASUALTY CO. | 1995/12/11 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Punitive damage awards entered against insureds in failure-to-warn, product liability cases are not covered by excess liability policies. Affording coverage would frustrate the underlying theory of punitive damages: to punish the wrongdoer and deter aggravated misconduct in the future. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] VITO VENTRE V. CPC INTERNATIONAL INC. | 1995/12/11 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Stacked compensation award reversed and remanded for reconsideration and further findings because of possible partial overlap of individual awards, and insufficient findings respecting true cumulative effect of separate injuries. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] CELINDA CREGO VS LEWIS CARP, D.O., ET AL | 1995/12/10 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none The so-called judgment charge which tracks the Model Jury Charge on medical malpractice, Model Jury Charge, 5.36A (Civil Charge) Medical Malpractice, Duty and Negligence (October 1982), is consistent with and controlled by the principles enunciated by our Supreme Court in Schueler v. Strelinger, 43 N.J. 330 (1965), and was neither misleading nor confusing. Moreover, it did not dilute in any respect the doctor's duty to conform to the applicable accepted standards of medical malpractice. In our view, there is no judicial warrant or sufficient reason for us to depart from the Model Jury Charge on medical malpractice, including the so-called judgment charge. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT E.A.: APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION AND TIER DESIGNATION | 1995/12/01 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Prosecutor's scope of notification determinations for this Tier Three registrant complied with prescripts of Registration and Community Notification Laws and Attorney General's Guidelines. Notification based on correlation between population density and distances registrant is likely to travel in today's society are fair and reasonable indicia for establishing areas where registrant is likely to encounter the public. Registrant's personal characteristics also established fair and reasonable basis for increasing distances as to notification of schools and operating licensed day care centers. However, before other community organizations are notified, they must be registered in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines and registrant must be given the opportunity to challenge organization qualifications for notification. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] THOMAS MEROLA V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS | 1995/12/01 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A murderer not sentenced to death is not entitled to apply commutation and work credits to reduce his or her thirty-year mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3b. This scheme is constitutional. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION) V. THE COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO | 1995/12/01 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where statute and regulations form a clear demotional layoff scheme, the managerial decision as to whether to layoff or demote requires that it be carried out without the burden of mandatory negotiation, even though demotional decisions may impact on the terms and conditions of employment. There will be times when the State's role in implementing public policy will face off against the employees' right to negotiate. This is a consequence of working for an employer who has a responsibility to the public and cannot bargain away the public's interest. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] HENRY SHAUDYS V. IMO INDUSTRIES | 1995/11/30 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Injury arose out of employment under N.J.S.A. 34:l5-7 where an employee damaged cartilage in his knee as a result of twisting it in the process of stepping towards his workplace while in the employee parking lot. Fact that a condition of the parking lot surface did not contribute to employee's injury did not satisfy the employer's burden of proving that its employee's injury occurred for personal reasons having no work connection. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] J.S. V. D.M. | 1995/11/29 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none A judgment that simply orders that judgment be entered in accordance with the transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof violates R. 4:42-1(a)(4) which requires separately numbered paragraphs for each substantive provision of the judgment. A person who reads a judgment or order should not have to also read a transcript to glean its substantive provisions. That causes an undue consumption of time and creates confusion and disputes as to what was actually adjudged. R. 4:42-1(a)(4) does not place an unreasonable responsibility on a trial judge. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF F.J. | 1995/11/28 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none We are convinced in light of the limited scope of our review that the trial court did not mistakenly exercise its broad discretion in evaluating the committees' present conditions and continuing their involuntary commitment at Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. The State established by clear and convincing evidence that the committees were suffering from a mental illness and were likely to present a substantial risk of danger to themselves or to society within the reasonably foreseeable future. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF D.M. | 1995/11/28 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none We are convinced in light of the limited scope of our review that the trial court did not mistakenly exercise its broad discretion in evaluating the committees' present conditions and continuing their involuntary commitment at Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. The State established by clear and convincing evidence that the committees were suffering from a mental illness and were likely to present a substantial risk of danger to themselves or to society within the reasonably foreseeable future. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. THEODORE VANDERVEER | 1995/11/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Sheriff's Officer, who by training or experience, can recognize burnt marijuana by smell, and who has a justifiable basis for believing that what he smelled in a confined outdoor porch space was the odor of burnt marijuana, has sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the persons in the immediate area from where the smell has emanated. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. EDWARD GALLAGHER | 1995/11/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Evidence of insertion of the penis between the left and right buttocks is not sufficient to prove anal penetration in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a as there must be penetration into the anus in order to prove this offense. However, the evidence may be sufficient to prove attempted anal penetration or sexual contact. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] PEARL MCCARTHY V. QUEST INTERNATIONAL COMPANY | 1995/11/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where the employer derives a benefit beyond worker morale and health from the atypical, but essentially directed, participation of its employee in an injury-producing recreational event, the injury may properly be deemed compensable under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 upon appropriate case-by-case analysis. Click here to get this docume |
| [New Jersey] ALBERT CHESTONE V. ROSE CHESTONE | 1995/11/27 | Court: Superior Court of New Jersey Docket No: none Where marital property includes retirement benefits governed by the Civil Service Retirement Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C.A. 8331 to 8348, the trial court must determine the Congressional purpose in enacting the legislation and then must determine whether an order of equitable distribution of that marital property will conflict with clear and substantial federal interests. An order for equitable distribution which conflicts with federal legislation will be deemed a nullity. Click here to get this docume |