 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Hodges v. Sasil Corp., A-113 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As attorneys who regularly filed summary dispossess actions for nonpayment of rent were "debt collectors" under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1692 to 1692o, a trial court erred in dismissing Section 8 tenants' suit against a law firm for violating the FDCPA.
|
|||||
| State v. Samuels, A-88 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's testimony that his alleged accomplice did not brandish a gun or cause or threaten harm to the alleged victim, if believed by the jury, could have sustained a conviction for attempted robbery in violation of N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:5-1 and 2C:15-1, the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on that offense.
|
|||||
| Kranz v. Tiger, DOCKET NO. A-2459-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, negligent miscommunications between plaintiff's physician and plaintiff's attorney, which resulted in plaintiff accepting a settlement solely because his attorney wrongly informed him that his key medical witness was unavailable to testify, provided grounds for malpractice actions against the physician and the attorney.
|
|||||
| Kwiatkowski v. Gruber, DOCKET NO. A-3845-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order dismissing a complaint with prejudice for a failure to comply with a discovery order, pursuant to R. 4:23-5(a)(1), was not a final appealable order as the dismissal was due to plaintiff's failure to comply with an ordered medical exam and plaintiff could move to reinstate the complaint after the parties cooperated in rescheduling the exam.
|
|||||
| Cutler v. Dorn, DOCKET NO. A-5512-02T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court should have granted a borough's motion for judgment nov in a police officer's hostile work environment suit based upon religion because the one comment made by a co-worker of "Those dirty Jews!" was insufficient under the Law Against Discrimination Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 10:5-1 to -49, to have submitted the case to a jury.
|
|||||
| State v. Goodmann, DOCKET NO. A-1447-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A customer who, following a billing dispute with a drug store regarding the cost of photo processing, took the finished photographs without paying for them, but gave his name and address to the store manager, was not guilty of shoplifting under N.J.S.A. § 2C:20-11(b)(1), therefore, the conviction was reversed on appeal.
|
|||||
| Yilmaz, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, DOCKET NO. A-0080-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a state tax assessment appeal based on a cash business audit, involving only factual issues and the methods employed by the Director of the Division of Taxation, the standard of proof necessary to overcome the presumed correctness of the assessment was definite evidence, positive and certain in quality and quantity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
