 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Referendum Petition to Repeal Ordinance 04-75, DOCKET NO. A-2009-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that petition for referendum to reject ordinance did not satisfy standards of N.J.S.A § 40:69A-185. Default rule in deciding where ultimate decision-making authority on municipal level lay was found in the legislature's declaration of policy that that power rested with the people through the referendum mechanism.
|
|||||
| Lewis v. Harris, A-68 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As denying rights and benefits of marriage to committed same-sex couples violated N.J. Const. art. I, para. 1's equal protection guarantee, legislature had to either amend marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create parallel statutory structure providing them with same rights, benefits, burdens, and obligations borne by married couples.
|
|||||
| Regency Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Southgate Corporate Office Center, DOCKET NO. A-1757-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, October 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a sheriff's sale, pursuant to a mortgage foreclosure judgment, was cancelled by a mortgagee because of a settlement with the mortgagor, the sheriff's percentage fee under N.J.S.A. § 22A:4-8 was ordered based, not on the amount of the judgment or the value of the property, but on the amount of the settlement.
|
|||||
| In re Municipal Court of Borough of East Newark, DOCKET NO. MER-L-2172-06,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, LAW DIVISION, MERCER COUNTY, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A borough and town's interlocal services agreement to share municipal court administrative support services pursuant to the New Jersey Interlocal Services Act, N.J.S.A. § 40:8A-1, was not approved because a provision in the agreement that allowed them to appoint their own individual judges was not permitted by N.J.S.A. § 2B:12-1(c).
|
|||||
| Lozner v. Lozner, DOCKET NO. A-6493-04T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, October 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial student loan debt was determined to constitute a factor that can be considered in determining whether alteration of a guideline-based child support award was warranted, provided the parent reasonably and necessarily acquired the loan for educational purposes with the goal of improving their earning capacity.
|
|||||
| Lodato v. Evesham Tp., DOCKET NO. A-4559-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment granted to a township was reversed in plaintiff's personal injury suit arising from a fall on a sidewalk slab raised by a tree root because plaintiff established a question of fact as to whether the township had constructive notice of the dangerous condition under N.J.S.A. § 59:4-3(b), as prior repairs had been made.
|
|||||
| State v. Eldridge, DOCKET NO. A-002656-03T4,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State and defendant offered contrasting theories of causation in a vehicular homicide prosecution, failure to charge volitional conduct of another as an intervening cause, pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 2C:2-3(c), was reversible error entitling defendant to a new trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
