 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Tuthill, DOCKET NO. A-6548-04T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As surety did not show it relied to its detriment on court's order cancelling defendant's bond, or that material increase in defendant's flight risk was occasioned thereby, it was not entitled to be discharged from its original obligation and was properly ordered to either reinstate bond to which it already had committed or, if lost, post new bond.
|
|||||
| Cipriani Builders, Inc. v. Madden, DOCKET NO. A-1234-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A former member's defamation claims against a trade association and its executive director were properly dismissed on their motion for summary judgment, as some statements were barred by the one-year statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. § 2A:14-3, and others were only rhetorical hyperbole that could not support a defamation claim.
|
|||||
| In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued to Galasso, DOCKET NO. A-2199-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the secrecy underlying a grand jury proceeding, a judge was entitled to rely on an ex parte certification submitted for in camera review by the State in opposition to a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena.
|
|||||
| Smerling v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., DOCKET NO. A-1689-05T1,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patrons' suit against casino hotel, alleging false advertising in violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1 to -20, was not preempted by New Jersey Casino Control Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 5:12-1 to -210, as there was no "direct and unavoidable conflict" between dual regulatory schemes, both of which prohibited deceptive advertisements.
|
|||||
| Wiese v. Dedhia, A-92 September Term 2005,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As all costs incurred due to defendants' rejection of an offer of judgment fell within the scope of R. 4:58-2, including those incurred on appeal, the intermediate appellate court erred in denying plaintiffs request for appellate counsel fees incurred in their second successful appeal on the issue of fees and costs due under R. 4:58-2.
|
|||||
| Ramsey v. Delaware River and Bay Authority, DOCKET NO. A-0773-05T3,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA) instituted a one-year suit limitation period governing negligence suits by ferry passengers without obtaining approval by the DRBA commissioners pursuant to the Delaware-New Jersey Compact, N.J.S.A. § 32:11E-1, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's suit as time-barred.
|
|||||
| J.S. v. L.S., DOCKET NO. A-2322-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband, presumed by N.J.S.A. § 9:17- 43(a)(1) to be father of child born during his marriage, was properly relieved of current and future obligations of financial support for child when DNA testing established he was not father, but he could not recover from wife sums paid for support of child up to time of testing; his remedy was against father.
|
|||||
| Bennett v. Maple Shade Twp., DOCKET NO. 005552-2005,
TAX COURT OF NEW JERSEY, December 18, 2006, n1 Decided1 This opinion was originally delivered to the parties in the form of a letter opinion dated December 18, 2006. The opinion was later approved for publication by the Tax Court Committee on Opinions on January 25, 2007. Minor editorial changes have been made to the original opinion.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The New Jersey Tax Court denied the taxpayers' motion to reopen the judgment upholding an assessment of their real property, pursuant to R. 4:50-1(b) based on newly discovered evidence, because the engineering report sought to reopen the judgment with was a report the taxpayers could have easily obtained before trial.
|
|||||
| Stoffels v. Harmony Hill Farm, DOCKET NO. A-2085-05T2,
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, December 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The operator of a stable properly relied on a comprehensive e-mail message from a rider that provided an extensive description of her riding experience, but summary judgment was reversed on the issue of whether the horse assigned to the rider was suitable, thereby precluding summary judgment under N.J.S.A. § 5:15-3 on that issue.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
