Search Results
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.A. | 1994/06/29 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The Code of Juvenile Justice should not be construed to prohibit imposition of consecutive sentences on juveniles who have committed two or more acts of delinquency. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF G.C. | 1994/06/29 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The Code of Juvenile Justice should not be construed to prohibit the sentencing to consecutive terms of incarceration of juveniles who have committed two or more acts of delinquency. |
| [New Jersey] KLETZKIN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF SPOTSWOOD, MIDDLESEX COUNTY | 1994/06/29 | Docket No: SYLLABUS A teaching-staff employee of a board of education may acquire tenure while on a leave of absence because of a work-related injury. |
| [New Jersey] TOBIA V. COOPER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER | 1994/06/28 | Docket No: SYLLABUS When a health-care professionals duty includes the exercise of reasonable care to prevent an aged, incapacitated, or infirm patient from engaging in self-damaging conduct, the health-care professional may not assert contributory negligence as a defense to a claim arising from that patients self-inflicted injuries. The jury verdict is irreparably tainted because the jurors may have been confused by the erroneous contributory-negligence charge, thereby focusing on Mrs. Tobias negligence rather than on the negligence of the health-care professionals. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. LOUIS PULASTY | 1994/06/28 | Docket No: SUPREMECOURTSYLLABUS Once a defendant has actually received pension benefits, those benefits are no longer protected by ERISA and are subject to a judgment. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. HARRY DE LUZIO | 1994/06/27 | Docket No: SYLLABUS That portion of the judgment of the Appellate Division opinion that is under review on the States appeal is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division. A pyramid scheme is not a lottery within the meaning of the statute and, therefore, does not constitute a gambling offense. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. STANLEY TUCKER, JR. | 1994/06/22 | Docket No: SUPREMECOURTSYLLABUS Under the stipulated facts of this case and the New Jersey state constitution, the police illegally seized defendant. Because of that illegal seizure, the evidence against defendant must be suppressed. |
| [New Jersey] NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V. K.M., SR. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V. R.M. | 1994/06/22 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The Division of Youth and Family Services is statutorily empowered to bring concurrent but separate Title 9 abuse-or-neglect proceedings and Title 30 termination proceedings against the same parents. Furthermore, the Appellate Division, in its review of the abuse-or-neglect appeal, improperly addressed the termination decision not before it. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. EMMANUEL A. BULLOCK | 1994/06/21 | Docket No: SYLLABUS A suspended state trooper remains a public servant for purposes of criminal prosecution for official misconduct. |
| [New Jersey] DOUGLAS BOOKER V. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD DARELLE NELSON V. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD NEEDHAM FITZPATRICK V. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD | 1994/06/21 | Docket No: SUPREMECOURTSYLLABUS Gap-time credits cannot be used to reduce the authority of a court to impose a judicial parole-ineligibility term. In the absence of a judicial or statutory parole-ineligibility term, gap-time credits proportionately advance a defendants primary parole-eligibility date. |
| [New Jersey] CHARLES C. WARD AND MARY B. WARD V. JOHANAN ZELIKOVSKY | 1994/06/20 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The content of Johanan Zelikovskys hateful statement to the Wards, the context in which he said it, its lack of verifiability, and the lack of any special damages established that Zelikovskys comment, although offensive, was not actionable under the law of slander. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JUAN DARNELL SMITH | 1994/06/20 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Theft of services is not a lesser-included offense of robbery. Furthermore, notwithstanding the statutory consolidation of theft offenses, robbery charges do not include theft of services as a related lesser offense. |
| [New Jersey] IMO BERNARD S. BERKOWITZ, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW IMO JAMES P. DUGAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW | 1994/06/17 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Bernard S. Berkowitz and James P. Dugan, partners in the same law firm, are both publicly reprimanded for failing to recognize and to resolve the possible conflict of interest between their respective clients. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, ET AL. | 1994/06/16 | Docket No: SYLLABUS In this civil forfeiture proceeding, the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the $7,000 from Ronald Durdens car was substantially and directly related to an indictable crime. The State failed to establish more probably than not that Durden planned to use the $7,000 to purchase illegal drugs. Accordingly, the trial courts findings were not supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. EILEEN PIERCE | 1994/06/15 | Docket No: SYLLABUS Because of the protections afforded under article 1, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court bright-line rule in New York v. Belton, which authorizes as an incident of the lawful arrest of a driver the contemporaneous search of the vehicles passenger compartment, including all containers, shall not apply indiscriminately to searches incidental to warrantless arrests for motor-vehicle offenses. |
| [New Jersey] IMO THE COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE'S ISSUANCE OF ORDERS A92-189 AND A92-212, AND ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 11:3-20.5 AND ADOPTION OF N.J.A.C. 11:3-20 - APPE | 1994/06/14 | Docket No: SYLLABUS By promulgating N.J.A.C. 11:3-20.5(e), the Commissioner of Insurance did not exceed his authority in prohibiting automobile insurers from deducting the surtax and assessment costs as an expense in their excess profit report unless permitted by the Commissioner to include such costs in its rate filing to insure a reasonable rate of return. |
| [New Jersey] HOROSZ V. ALPS ESTATES, INC. | 1994/06/13 | Docket No: SYLLABUS When a builder-developer performs repairs that constitute an improvement to real property after the initial construction has been completed, the owner has ten years from completion of the repair work to file an action against the builder-developer for defects relating solely to that repair work. With respect to defects unrelated to repairs, however, the ten-year statute of repose runs from the date of the completion of the initial construction of the home. The Horoszes complaint alleges that Alps negligently performed the 1983 underpinning; therefore, their claim is not barred by the ten-year statute of repose. |
| [New Jersey] IMO ESTATE OF DUDLEY B. DAWSON, DECEASED Amended 07-15-94 | 1994/06/09 | Docket No: SYLLABUS There is a rebuttable presumption that a stock distribution of less than twenty-five percent of the outstanding shares is a stock dividend and a distribution of twenty-five percent or more of the outstanding shares is a stock split. In looking behind the transaction, courts should inquire into all the facts and circumstances surrounding the distribution, including: 1) the effect of the distribution on the market price of the stock; and 2) the issuing corporations description of the transaction. Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar the Court from applying the rebuttable presumption in this case. |
| [New Jersey] STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. KEITH STEWART | 1994/06/08 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The trial court improperly admitted Keith Stewart into the Essex County Local Intensive Probation Supervision Effort Program because N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 expressly prohibits a court from imposing a lesser term of imprisonment than that provided in the plea agreement. |
| [New Jersey] FANELLI V. CITY OF TRENTON | 1994/06/07 | Docket No: SYLLABUS The City of Trentons municipal ordinance banning independent peddlers within the Special Improvement District (SID) furthers the policies of the SID statute as authorized by N.J.S.A. 40:56-77(b)(2). Furthermore, the ordinance does not violate state or federal equal-protection and due-process rights because the ordinance is rationally related to the legitimate statutory objective of revitalizing downtown shopping districts. Finally, because the ordinance is authorized by the SID statute and the anticompetitive effect of the ban is a foreseeable result of that authorization, the result does not violate state antitrust laws and constitutes state action that is immune from challenge under federal antitrust laws. |