 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D'Annunzio v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., A-119 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether plaintiff, an alleged independent contractor, was insurer's "employee" under N.J.S.A. § 34:19-2(b) of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act definition hinged on degree of "control and direction" exercised over him. Evidence suggesting that insurer controlled and directed him precluded entry of summary judgment for the insurer.
|
|||||
| New Jersey Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. B.R., A-76 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a proceeding to terminate her parental rights under N.J.S.A. § 30:4C-15.1, a mother had the right to effective counsel, as defined by the Strickland test. However, as the representation she received, although perhaps not a model, was not ineffective, the termination of her rights was properly affirmed.
|
|||||
| Stomel v. City of Camden, A-45/46 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, July 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city could be held vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for its mayor's removal of a municipal public defender because under New Jersey's Faulkner Act, the mayor was the policy-maker for city in respect of that removal. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the public defender's § 1983 claim against the city.
|
|||||
| Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Ass'n, A-118/122 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In balancing a group of residents' expressional rights against a homeowners' association's policies, the association's policies governing the posting of signs, use of a community room, and access to a newsletter did not violate the free speech and right of assembly clauses of the New Jersey Constitution, N.J. Const. art. I, paras. 6 and 18.
|
|||||
| Gamba v. Township of Brick, DOCKET NO. A-4384-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owner was entitled to a jury instruction stating that a township's demolition of his building was not authorized, as the township failed to substantially comply with N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:48-2.5, -2.7, and the owner did not have actual notice of the information needed and the opportunity necessary to permit defense against demolition.
|
|||||
| Seigel v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., DOCKET NO. A-4109-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A reviewing court interpreted the regulatory definitions of a dune under N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.16(a) and a primary frontal dune under N.J.A.C. 7:7-7.8(d)(1)(ii) and held that an agency improperly denied a landowner's application to build an oceanfront home as the subject property was not a dune, therefore, the regulatory restrictions did not apply.
|
|||||
| State v. Banks, DOCKET NO. A-2983-05T4,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As question about juror's "inability" to proceed arose after jury had advised court it could not reach a verdict and was given a Czachor charge, when jury thereafter announced it could not reach verdict due to the juror's bias against police, court erred by denying defendant's request for mistrial and replacing "problem" juror under R. 1:8-2(d)(1).
|
|||||
| State v. Burns, A-27 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Faced with the difficult dilemma of handling a recalcitrant witness who had no valid basis to refuse to testify, a trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to call the witness and, since defendant failed to object to the jury charge, defendant's conviction for murder was reinstated.
|
|||||
| State v. Wilson, DOCKET NOS. A-5618-05T1, A-5622-05T1, A-5625-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That defendants failed to appear due to their incarceration in other states was insufficient basis to deny surety's motion to set aside bail forfeitures. Court had to consider whether bail could be remitted when defendants were located in out-of-state custody and detainer was lodged, or whether such relief had to await their return to New Jersey.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
