 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Application of Taylor, DOCKET NO. A-5522-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When acting on a prosecutor's request under N.J.S.A. § 2A:158-7 to order freeholders to appropriate funds to pay his employees, trial court exercised a delegated legislative function, not a judicial one. Thus, the standard of review was whether its decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; the appellate court found that it was not.
|
|||||
| In re Civil Commitment of J.P., DOCKET NO. A-2269-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though appellant pled guilty to endangering the welfare of child, which was not listed as a "sexually violent offense" in N.J.S.A. § 30:4-27.26(a), he was properly committed to special treatment unit as a sexually violent predator because the conduct underlying the offenses to which he pled guilty demonstrated elements of sexual assault.
|
|||||
| State v. Breslin, DOCKET NO. A-6074-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly treated as second offender under N.J.S.A. § 39:4-50.4a, as there was no reason to nullify his prior refusal conviction based upon lesser burden of proof from being considered in determining his status under § 39:4-50.4a as second offender after second conviction of same offense based on the criminal standard of proof.
|
|||||
| Chadwick 99 Assocs. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, DOCKET NO. 005611-2002, DOCKET NO. 005630-2002, DOCKET NO. 005631-2002, DOCKET NO. 005625-2002, DOCKET NO. 005629-2002, DOCKET NO. 005621-2002, DOCKET NO. 005622-2002, DOCKET NO. 005627-2002, DOCKET NO. 005628-2002, DOCKET NO. 005626-2002, DOCKET NO. 005624-2002, DOCKET NO. 005632-2002, DOCKET NO. 005623-2002,
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As L. 2001, c. 101, which amended N.J.S.A. § 54:4-23, directed reassessment when there was reason to believe property was assessed at value lower or higher than was consistent with securing uniform taxable valuation of property according to law, it did not facially violate the Uniformity Clause, N.J. Const. art. VIII, § 1, para. 1(a).
|
|||||
| First Union Nat'l Bank v. Penn Salem Marina, Inc., A-11 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When there was an action on a note followed by an action to foreclose on the security, issue preclusion required the trial court in the second action to have been bound by the judgment entered in the first action to the extent that the same categories of damages were claimed in the second as in the first.
|
|||||
| In re Walton, D-84 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, May 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| P.V. v. Camp Jaycee, DOCKET NO. A-4160-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 10, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act did not immunize New Jersey charity for negligent acts in Pennsylvania, which had no charitable immunity, as Pennsylvania's interest in subjecting charities to same liability as for-profit entities outweighed New Jersey's interest in immunizing its charities from liability for tortious conduct in another state.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
