 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adelhock v. Clerk of Bergen County, DOCKET NO. 000018-2002,
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayers were not entitled to an exemption from payment of the realty transfer fee under N.J.S.A. § 46:15-10(a) because the "consideration" for the transfer, as defined by N.J.S.A. § 46:15-5(c), consisted of both the stated consideration of $ 1 and the mortgage assumed by the taxpayers, which together exceeded $ 100.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Naser City Transp. Corp., DOCKET NO. A-1419-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred by awarding a taxi passenger uninsured motorist (UM) benefits under the taxi owner's policy, since she was not covered under that policy, and pursuant to N.J.S.A. § 17:28-1.1, a motor vehicle policy issued to a taxicab owner could limit UM coverage to the insured and the cab drivers, while excluding such coverage for passengers.
|
|||||
| In re A.S., DOCKET NO. A-3170-05T4,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An adoption agency's motion to intervene in the protective services litigation involving a minor child was properly denied since the mother's surrender of parental rights and her consent to adoption was ineffective as custody of the child had already been transferred to a third party from whom the child was removed by emergency order.
|
|||||
| Robles v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, DOCKET NO. A-2654-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's disciplinary appeal was remanded to the New Jersey Department of Corrections for findings specifically justifying any need for confidentiality of a videotape, which was withheld from the inmate during the hearing process, wherein he was found guilty of disruptive conduct after a fight involving 34 inmates that was videotaped.
|
|||||
| Roman v. City of Plainfield, DOCKET NO. A-6337-04T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an injured woman's slip and fall case, a city had exercised sufficient control over private property within the meaning of N.J.S.A. § 59:4-1(c) by forbidding a commercial landowner from repairing an uneven sidewalk upon which the woman fell, making the trial court's grant of the city's motion for judgment improper.
|
|||||
| In re Vartan, D-21 September Term 2006,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Brun v. Cardoso, DOCKET NO. A-0306-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury case, substitute radiologist's opinion about plaintiff's MRI was inadmissible as it differed from that of the original radiologist and had not been disclosed in discovery. But dismissal rather than mistrial was too harsh a sanction, as defendants had expert prepared to rebut interpretation of plaintiff's substitute expert.
|
|||||
| Bruno v. Mark MaGrann Associates, Inc., DOCKET NO. A-0411-05T5,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Home buyers, with arbitration clause in purchase contracts with a developer, were properly required to arbitrate disputes over their homes' heating systems with subcontractors, even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with them, as the arbitration clause was broad enough to encompass the buyers' disputes with the subcontractors.
|
|||||
| Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Bryan, DOCKET NO.A-1840-04T3, A-3108-04T3, A-3110-04T3, A-3111-04T3, A-3112-04T3, A-3113-04T3, A-3114-04T3, A-3115-04T3, A-3116-04T3, A-3117-04T3, A-3118-04T3, A-3119-04T3, A-3120-04T3, A-3121-04T3, A-3122-04T3, A-3123-04T3, A-2034-05T3, A-2035-05T3, A-2036-05T3, A-2037-05T3, A-2038-05T3, A-2039-05T3, A-2040-05T3, A-2041-05T3, A-2042-05T3, A-2043-05T3, A-2044-05T3, A-2045-05T3, A-2046-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, November 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title insurers' suit against New Jersey Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, challenging assessments made under N.J.S.A. 17:33A-8(g) of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Protection Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 17:33A-1 to -30, failed, as they were not exempt from such assessments under the New Jersey Title Insurance Act of 1974, N.J.S.A. §§ 17:46B-1 to -62.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
