 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Commitment of M.M., DOCKET NO. A-5139-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in extending patient's civil commitment beyond 20 days, because it failed to consider whether "good cause" and "exceptional circumstances" justified this, as required by N.J. Ct. R. 4:74-7(c)(1) and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4-27.12(a), and the patient's mental illness or dangerousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| International Union of Operating Engineers Local # 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co., Inc., DOCKET NO. A-0450-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial judge properly certified a nationwide class of all third-party payors who paid any person or entity for the purchase of Vioxx since May 1, 1999, and correctly found that the common issues of consumer fraud among all members of the class predominated with New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 to -20, controlling.
|
|||||
| State v. Franklin, DOCKET NO. A-0981-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, March 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant had successfully sued a police department because police had planted drugs on him and fabricated charges was not admissible under N.J. R. Evid. 404(b) in a drug case filed six years later, as there was no evidence that detective who allegedly bought drugs from defendant in the later case knew of lawsuit or had motive to lie.
|
|||||
| In re Forfeiture of Public Office of Nunez, DOCKET NO. A-6187-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As appellee's city job was not forfeited at the time of his conviction of a third-degree misdemeanor, as mandated by N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:51-2(a)(1), and he later expunged conviction under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:52-2(a), city could not enforce forfeiture of his job because that collateral consequence of his conviction was eliminated by expungement.
|
|||||
| Yaghoubinejad v. Haghighi, DOCKET NO. A-0207-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties' marriage was void despite solemnization by authorized cleric, as they failed to obtain license to marry and N.J. Stat. Ann. § 37:1-10 declared that any purported marriage performed without marriage license was "absolutely void." Various validating acts addressed defects in solemnization of marriage but did not excuse absence of a license.
|
|||||
| State v. Boretsky, A-34 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, April 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: During an emergency aid response, an alleged equivocal reference by defendant to counsel lacked sufficient basis to tie the statement to interests the Miranda remedy was designed to protect and the statements made by defendant with regard to his stabbed wife were admissible since when the emergency ended, Miranda warnings were administered.
|
|||||
| A.A. v. State, DOCKET NO. A-2153-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: N.J. Const. art. IV, § VII, para. 12, which authorized legislation providing for posting of identifying information about sex offenders on the Internet (New Jersey Internet Registry Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:7-12 to -19) did not violate federal Ex Post Facto and Double Jeopardy Clauses as its purpose was not punitive but to protect the public.
|
|||||
| In re Serrano, D-123 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, April 6, 2006, Decided , April 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Elkwisni, DOCKET NO. A-1105-04T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, April 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the record developed before a trial court at a N.J. R. Evid. 104 hearing was insufficient, as a matter of law, to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his Miranda rights when he told the police where he hid a gun during a convenience store robbery, a voluntariness hearing was required on remand.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
