 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cotler v. Township of Pilesgrove, DOCKET NO. A-0092-06T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit brought by property owners challenging the validity of an ordinance reclassifying the zoning of their property, the ordinance was invalidated since the published notice did not comply with N.J.S.A. § 40:49-2.1(a) in that it did not provide a brief summary of the main objectives or provisions of the ordinance.
|
|||||
| In re Darrow, D-83 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Malat, D-89 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred for violating N.J. Ct. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), 1.5(b), 1.15(a), 5.3(a)-(c), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) by his gross neglect, failure to communicate with client regarding fees, misappropriation of client funds, failure to supervise non-lawyer assistants, failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and dishonesty.
|
|||||
| New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., DOCKET NO. A-6588-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an environmental cleanup case that presented a question of first impression, it was held that an entity may be strictly liable under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 58:10-23.11 to -23.24, for damages for the loss of use of natural resources adversely affected by its discharge of hazardous substances.
|
|||||
| Potenzone v. Annin Flag Co., A-54 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Commercial automobile policy's exclusion for loading and unloading activities was void as contrary to New Jersey's omnibus automobile statute. Therefore, that exclusion had to be treated as though it were not part of the policy and the insurer was responsible for coverage up policy limits, not the minimum coverage required by N.J.S.A. § 39:6B-1(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Morgan, DOCKET NO. A-5969-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, June 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In establishing a violation of N.J.S.A. § 39:4-98, sworn testimony from a police officer relating the speed limit in a zone in the municipality in which she was employed, if admissible and if believed, was sufficient proof of the lawful speed limit in the area in question.
|
|||||
| MacKinnon v. MacKinnon, A-114 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The 12 case law factors applicable to removal cases involving children of divorced parents was held to apply to the international removal context. As such, a trial court properly applied those factors in granting a mother's removal request to move the parties' daughter to Japan as the visitation schedule provided almost 10 weeks with the father.
|
|||||
| Vergopia v. Shaker, A-10 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, June 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the broad indemnification provision contained in an employer's State of Delaware certificate of incorporation, a corporate officer who successfully defended himself in a trade libel suit brought by two former employees was entitled to indemnification as a corporate officer.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
