|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
New Jersey - May 22 - May 24, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Haggerty v. Red Bank Borough Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, DOCKET NO. A-4251-04T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Where the father of a vice-chairperson of a zoning board of adjustment was "of counsel" to a law firm that had previously represented a variance applicant in matter before the board, causing board's chairperson, who was a partner in that same law firm, to recuse himself, vice-chairperson was also disqualified under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 40A:9-22.5(d).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Franklin v. Sloskey, DOCKET NO. A-2777-04T1, A-2685-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Court violated plaintiff's due process rights by entering final restraining order (FRO) against him, as he appeared pro se at hearing held under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:25-29 to prosecute domestic violence complaint against former girlfriend, no such complaint had been filed against him, and he was not advised of serious consequences of entry of FRO.
|
|
| |
State ex rel. J.A., DOCKET NO. A-5085-04T4,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: In a juvenile delinquency case, a non-testifying eyewitness's description of assailant, made to police by phone as he was witnessing the attack and pursuing the fleeing suspect, qualified as present sense impression, N.J. R. Evid. 803(c)(1), and an excited utterance, N.J. R. Evid. 803(c)(2), and its admission did not violate Crawford v. Washington.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
State v. McKeon, DOCKET NO. A-5658-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, May 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was not excluded, pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:43-12(g), from entry into pre-trial intervention solely because he previously received benefit of a supervisory treatment program in another state, as § 2C:43-12(g) referred to diversionary programs in New Jersey, not to diversionary programs under the laws of other states.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|