 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Passaic v. Shennett, DOCKET NO. A-1311-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court lacked jurisdiction over a property owner in a condemnation action as a result of failing to provide the owner with the pre-condemnation notice required by N.J.S.A. § 20:3-6 and otherwise failing to properly serve the owner with process. Therefore, the judgment entered affecting the owner's rights or property was void.
|
|||||
| In re Maisto, D-61 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Perone, D-27 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, February 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Morales, DOCKET NO. A-2842-06T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The recently promulgated AOC Directive 21-06, entitled, "Approved Jury Selection Standards, Including Model Voir Dire Questions," was held binding on all trial courts and its provisions must be strictly followed. An appellate court ruled that it will reverse a proposed voir dire method that does not comport with the Directive.
|
|||||
| State v. Renshaw, DOCKET NO. A-0712-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The hearsay admission of a Uniform Certification for Bodily Specimens Taken in a Medically Acceptable Manner, without providing defendant with the opportunity to cross-examine the nurse who drew his blood, pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 2A:62A-11, violated defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses.
|
|||||
| Jablonowska v. Suther, DOCKET NO. A-0462-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's claim for emotional distress under Portee v. Jaffee due to her witnessing her mother's injuries and death in an auto accident was subject to N.J. Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act's threshold and failed as she did not present objective clinical evidence to show she sustained "permanent injury" as defined in N.J.S.A. § 39:6A-8(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Chun, September Term 2005, Docket No. 58,879,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, February 13, 2007, Findings and Conclusions Submitted to Supreme Court
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Alcotest 7110 was scientifically reliable under the clear and convincing evidence standard when the test protocol was followed and the instrument was functioning properly, therefore, the Alcotest 7110 test results were admissible as evidence and supported convictions under N.J.S.A. § 39:4-50 and other statutes.
|
|||||
| In re Perone, D-27 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, February 15, 2007, Decided , February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rente v. Rente, DOCKET NO. A-2887-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, February 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in granting paternal grandparents visitation under N.J.S.A. § 9:2-7.1 over the mother's objection, as evidence that they occasionally babysat their grandson, then two, was insufficient to satisfy the high burden of proof of harm required under Moriarty v. Bradt to rebut the presumption in favor of parental decisionmaking.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
