ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] [See Pa 445a, ¶ 19 (“[...] will consider issuing a policy notwithstanding a pending disciplinary proceeding if the nature of the charges or other circumstances indicate that the proceeding involves a comparatively less serious alleged ethical violation or that the complaint likely reflects a meritless charge by a disgruntled client, although even in those circumstances [...] will almost always charge a higher premium because of the disciplinary proceeding. ”)]  The “notes” in the Underwriting Guidelines anticipate one situation (a pattern of disciplinary complaints or systemic issues) in which declination of the proposed account is automatic, but does not purport to anticipate every possible circumstance, nor could it.  [...] and [...] asserted below that, instead of not issuing the Policies, [...] may have issued them at a higher premium.
[brief] [N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(b). ]  Structurally, the above listed criteria that disqualify candidates from Track One based on criminal charges or convictions contain three categories of disqualifying offenses: (1) “present offenses” (offenses for which the defendant has been convicted and for which he is being sentenced under the indictment under which he seeks admission into Track One Recovery Court); (2) “other pending charges” (pending charges in an indictment other than the indictment under which he seeks admission into Track One Recovery Court); and (3) “prior convictions.
[brief] Going beyond that, [...] did nothing to communicate with the [...], which he claimed was retained to represent him, until well into 2018, long after the Statute of Limitations expired, and long after the Complaint was filed by the [...] on behalf of [...].  The Complaint in Probate, which was filed in January of 2018, only named [...] as the plaintiff.  At that point, upon receipt of the same, [...] did not call or write [...], and state, “Hey, why is this thing only naming me?  You’re -- you’re -- you’ve been retained to represent both of us.  Why didn’t [...] say something?”  All indications were that [...] was not an unsophisticated individual.  That was part of the Court’s analysis.  [...] Miranda was not some inexperienced person who was not familiar with legal counsel.  [...] had [...] as his lawyer for a long time.  (Da98).  The record reflected that [...] was well acquainted with attorneys, and he knew the importance of being represented by counsel.  (Da98).  [...] considered [...] to be his attorney, and that was an argument being made by the defense on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY BARRED [...]’S EXPERT FROM TESTIFYING BASED ON THE NET OPINION STANDARD (3T:5)  During the case before the trial court, the trial court properly held that Plaintiff’s expert, [...], could not testify that [...]’ invoices were unreasonable, unnecessary or excessive.  (3T:5).  The trial court’s holding was proper based on the net opinion that was authored.  This case stemmed from a dispute over the alleged nonpayment of counsel fees.
[directive] Forfeiture related purposes shall include the following:  1.  The maintaining and safeguarding seized property; cost of or 2.  The cost maintaining and safeguarding seized forfeited real of property; - The of returning seized property the rightful owner; cost to 3.  -- li in DL&PS  The cost 6f placing seized property into service the where 4. use a order for the property has been obtained; 5.  The incurred when preparing place forfeited property into to costs service with the DL8PS; of 6.  The maintaining an equity interest the seized property in cost pending a forfeiture disposition; 7.  The disposing property, whether by sale or destruction, of cost of use of either directly after forfeiture after such property by the or agency; or - - Jersey 02 of 4
[directive] 1.  Establishment of the Forensic Science Commission.  a.  There is created in the Department of Law and Public Safety the Forensic Science Commission, which shall consist of thirty-two (32) voting members appointed by the Attorney General, including representatives selected from among state and county forensic experts, forensic pathologists, forensic toxicologists, -2- prosecutors and crime scene examiners.  The Attorney General shall designate the chairperson(s) and vice-chairperson of the Commission.  Any vacancy on the Commission shall be filled by appointment of the Attorney General.  b.  Each member shall serve for an initial term of two (2) years, and thereafter each member shall serve until that member’s successor is appointed.  c.  Members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for their services.  d.  The Commission shall meet no less than four times per year and up to twelve times per year at the direction of the chairperson(s).  e.  The Commission shall establish rules and procedures regarding the conduct of its meetings.  2.  Duties and Responsibilities of the Forensic Science Commission.
[brief] Id. at 217 (“In short, we share [...]'s reservations about the Appellate Division's new rule requiring officers to tell an arrestee, not subject to a complaint-warrant or arrest warrant, what charges he faces before interrogating him.  We decline to adopt that rule. ”).  Further cases to interpret the obligation of detectives to advise a defendant of his “true status” also focused on whether or not the detectives led the defendant to believe “they were there to investigate something else” other than the charge they had probable cause to arrest for.  State v. Hahn, 473 N.J. Super. 349, 369 (App. Div. 2022).  As the Hahn Court held in interpreting the import of the Sims decision, “in the absence of the issuance of a formal complaint-warrant, police were under no obligation to tell the defendant why he was arrested, even though he specifically asked, and police already knew he would be charged with attempted murder. ”  Id. at 370.  Similarly, here, Defendant’s argument that the detectives “affirmatively misled” him as to his “true status” by not informing him that they had probable cause to arrest is entirely meritless in light of Sims.  POINT II
[brief] PA – 1 to 5.  [...] noted that Defendant’s Objection was tardy, but the Court considered Defendant’s Objection.  PA – 2.  [...] also noted that the Court considered Plaintiff’s Reply.  PA – 3.  [...] addressed Defendant’s newly raised affirmative defenses in the decision.  PA – 4 to 5.  [...] concluded that Defendant’s Objection consisted of “bare legal conclusions that are entirely unsupported by affidavit or competent evidence.
[directive] The information should not include the names of each individual.  See Appendix A for the agency reporting form, which will also generate the agency’s annual report.  5  1.  The age, gender, race, and ethnicity of the law enforcement officers currently appointed to the law enforcement agency as of December 31 (or, if that data is unavailable, data from a different date reasonably close to year-end) of the preceding calendar year; provided),7
[brief] Post-Judgment Order Approving Judgment Credit Allocation and Calculation, entered by the Hon. [...], P.J.Ch. on August 26, 2022…………………………………………………………………………………Da1  ## TABLE OF AUTHORITIES | CASES: | | --- | | **Brown v. Stackler,**<br>612 F.2d 1057 (7th Cir. 1980)..................................................13, 14, 26 | | **Caride v. Young,**<br>No. A-5419-17T4.
[brief] The trial court is not required “to meticulously sift through the entire record...to see if some combination of facts and inferences might rationally sustain” a possible charge.  *Ibid.*  Here, defendant did not walk away from a corpse whose brain was immediately shredded from a shot to the head.  Defendant walked away from someone who he shot in the body, “aiming low,” who survived for, at minimum, minutes while incapacitated.  There was evidence [...]’ lingered longer, as he was still warm to the touch two hours later.  An expert opinion is just that: an opinion, not a certainty, and there is nothing to suggest that defendant knew that [...]’ death was inevitable when he made his choice to watch baseball and call his mom instead of calling 911.  While blowing someone’s skull open is obviously instant death, *Moon* also had evidence that the victim was dead before he even hit the ground, with no swelling, bruising, or bleeding that should have been present after such an impact.  396 N.J. Super. at 113.  Here, [...] bled so much that it killed him—a quart of blood had filled his chest cavity, with even more blood filling his abdominal cavity and his pericardial cavity around the heart.  (19T:103-21 to 104-8).  That takes time.  Even if the effort would have been futile, the lack of effort is what New Jersey has declared to be criminal.  Thus, there was no basis in the record to have sua sponte charged the jury with *Moon’s* holding.  Defendant’s conviction on this count should be affirmed.
[brief] Plaintiff filed his Complaint alleging medical malpractice against Defendants on May 14, 2019.  (Pa2.)  In response to Defendants’ notice of a neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel advised that Plaintiff will be tape recording the examination.  (Pa107.)  Defendants moved to compel the defense neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff without recording.  (Pa107.)  Defendants’ counsel argued that [...] will not perform the IME if it is recorded.  (Pa107.)  Counsel explained, [...] does not permit recordings of his examinations, because the disruption potentially invalidates the integrity of the process, the testing and results and violates the --- 1  Due to the intertwined nature of the relevant facts with the procedural history, we have combined them.
[brief] The standard goes beyond constitutional infringements and encompasses any circumstances deemed “unjust. ”  Although a petitioner does not have to prove that an issue cost him the case, “to establish injustice there should at least be some showing that [the alleged violation] played a role in the determination of guilt. ”  Ibid; see, e.g., State v. Coon, 314 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div. 1998) (PCR claim not related to guilt fell within fundamental injustice exception)  First, there is every indication that [...] is innocent.  Maintaining a wrongful conviction, predicated on constitutional violations, is the ultimate injustice.
[brief] ”  M.J. Paquet v. N.J. DOT, 171 N.J. 378, 396 (2002) (citing Nester v. O’Donnell, 301 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 1997)).  “[W]here the terms of a contract are clear, . . . the court must enforce it as written. ”  Cnty. of Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 103 (1998).  It is not the function of the courts to rewrite a contract or add terms which the parties did not agree upon.  See Schenck v. HJI Assocs., 295 N.J. Super. 445, 450 (App. Div. 1996).  In other words, it is well-established a court cannot “make a different or a better contract than the parties” entered into.
[brief] What is more, since the Debtor had not been successful in setting aside the Final Judgment, there simply was no basis for the motion.  While raised only in oral argument on the motion, counsel to the Debtor did not and was unable to articulate how Tyler was applicable to a tax foreclosure sale conducted by a private, nongovernmental entity — let --- 7  While the Debtor has asked the court to “consider” his claim under his Eighth Amendment theory, see e.g., Main Case Doc. No. 62, to be sure, the court has never seen this argument and the Debtor never provided any law or facts that support such a claim for the court to consider.  What is more, no such claim is made in his Adversary Proceeding.  Therefore, the court deems the argument abandoned and as such, it need not be addressed here and/or reconsidered.
[brief] Yet, Plaintiff now argues this Court should affirm based on certain “public benefits” that include:  1.  “Enhanced Recreational Opportunities” for parks, trails and recreational facilities to meet community need.  (Pb21)  2.  “Environmental Preservation” to preserve lands with ecological value, habitat preservation, and protect water resources.  (Pb22)  3.  “Strategic Urban Planning” to facilitate smart growth.  (Pb22)  4.  “Community Engagement and Public Support” suggesting significant community engagement in a transparent process.  (Pb23)  5.  “Economic Benefits” suggesting open space will attract tourism.  (Pb23)  The Township fails to cite to the record to show that the Township considered any of these factors in seeking to condemn Defendants’ properties, nor were these considerations before the court below.  Plaintiff is attempting to retroactively justify a “public use” based upon the unfounded assertions of counsel.
[directive] a.  II.3.1.  All Relevant Law Enforcement Agencies are recommended to designate a point of contact (LEA POC) at their agency who will coordinate with the HVIP team.  The HVIP team should also designate a point of contact (HVIP POC) to coordinate with their LEA counterpart.  b.  II.3.2.  All Relevant Law Enforcement Agencies should make officers available for a training opportunity or other opportunity to meet the local HVIP team.  (The HVIP teams also received LPS guidance to make themselves available for this opportunity.)  Trainings can be coordinated with/between the LEA and HVIP POCs.  V.
[brief] ”  (1T 9-19 to 11-4, 46-17 to 47-4, 51-20 to 25, 73-21 to 74-1)  When [...] started following the vehicle, he did not turn on his overhead lights.  (1T 10-14 to 11-2, 53-24 to 55-5)  Rather, he waited until the vehicle exited the highway.  (Ibid.)  The activation of [...]’s overhead lights caused his motor vehicle recorder (MVR) to start recording, as well as capture the 30 seconds prior to activation.  (1T 23-2 to 18; Da 20)  The MVR was played at the suppression hearing.
[directive] Escalating Policies  Plea of 12.2  Issuance ................................................77  Required Features 12.3 7K ..................... . ......................  Supervisors Designated 12.4 78 ................................  Rights Victims' with Strict Adherence 12.5 79 ................................................ Enforcement Strict 12.6 7) ....................................  Offers Plea Judicial Unauthorized 12.7 80 ...... . ..............  LAW BAIL REFORM INTERPRETATION OF UNIFORM 13. 80 ............................
[brief] Our Supreme Court in State v. Womack, 145 N.J. 576, 586 (1996) said that the boundaries of the relief that can be afforded under subsection (f) are “as expansive as the need to achieve equity and justice. ”  Court Inv. Co. v. Perillo, 48 N.J. 334, 341 (1966); see Hous. Auth. of Town of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 289 (1994) (“[T]he Rule is designed to provide relief from judgments in situations in which, were it not applied, a grave injustice would occur.
[directive] All equitable sharing shall be based on net proceeds of the forfeiture.  Payments shall not of exceed the fair market value of the forfeited property at the time disposition.  In determining the amount of the equitable share for each participating agency, the following factors shall be considered:  1.  Whether the seizure was adopted or the result of a joint investigation.  21 Executive Office Asset Forfeiture for for Chapterm Guidelines Seized and Fo$eited Proper& ~ 2.  The requesting agency’s participation in the law enforcement effort that led to the forfeiture.  This should take into account the total value of all property forfeited and total law enforcement effort, including any related criminal prosecution.  3.  Whether the requesting agency originated the information that led to the seizure.  4.  Whether the requesting agency provided unique or indispensable assistance.  5.  Whether the requesting agency seized additional assets pursuad to its jurisdiction during the same investigation.  6.  Whether the requesting agency could have achieved forfeiture under its jurisdiction but joined forces with a Treasury agency to make a more effective investigation.  Sharing Percentages
[brief] *A.D.M. v. A.M.*, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2780, at *5-6 (App. Div. Dec. 19, 2018) (citing *Mueller*, supra, 8 N.J. at 207)  (To sustain a conversion claim as a matter of law, a plaintiff must demand the return of the property and establish the refusal to return the property was wrongful.)
[brief] *Ibid.*  He is seen picking up the telephone on the officer’s desk and then returning to the food preparation room.  (1T65:8-13).  Between 1:26 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., [...] leaves the food preparation room only at 2:15 a.m., 3:41 a.m., and 4:05 a.m. and each time, returned shortly after.  (1T66:18-1T67:23; 1T68:11-1T69:1; 1T71:14-20).  Only at 4:05 a.m. does [...] even walk in the direction of any [...] inmate housing wings.  (1T71:14-20).  Based on the layout of [...], [...] explained that it was not possible to leave the food preparation room and perform inmate counts without being seen by surveillance cameras.  (1T72:13-16).  In fact, at no time between 2:00a.m. and 4:05a.m. did [...] walk into the wings.  (1T71:14-20).  [...] worked the third shift in [...] South on August 16, 2019.
[brief] TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS & RULINGS BEING APPEALED  Page A.  Ruling for notice to non-parties 11/13/23……………………………… IT150 & 174-81  B.  Order providing for notice to non-parties 11/14/23………………………………………Pa95  C.  Ruling in favor of defendants at post-trial hearing 1/29/24…………………2T5-20  D.  Final Order 2/8/24………………………………………………………………………………Pa96  TRANSCRIPT KEY  1 T - November 13, 2023  Trial 2T - January 29, 2024  Post-Trial Hearing # TABLE OF CITATIONS | Cases | Page | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Braue v. Fleck, 23 N.J. 1, 5, 127 A.2d 1 (1956) | 21 | | Persons v. Bergmann, 182 N.J.Super. 476, 479, 442 A.2d 647 (App.Div.1982) | 21 |
[brief] Imposing a duty of care here comports with precedent and is entirely fair to [...].  Unlike in the typical case involving a triple net lease, the defect did not arise while the tenant had exclusive use and control of the property.  Instead, the defect existed prior to the initiation of the 2016 Lease.  As the landlord, [...] should not be permitted to evade responsibility for the property by avoiding either the discovery of potentially fatal defects or avoiding the repair of such defects.  This ostrich in the sand approach to property ownership contravenes the generally accepted rule that landowners have the duty to make their premises reasonably safe.
[brief] B.  Plaintiffs Failed To Quantify Damages As To Just Compensation, and Instead received a Substantial Benefit From the Authority.  [...] testified that the taking of soil borings, the installation of temporary well points, and the excavation of the Property were conducted without his permission or consent.  These events occurred on February 20-21, 2017 and on May 18, 2017.  While eight instances were alleged in total in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, their subsequent claims narrowed these instances down to these events.
[brief] ”  Inasmuch as Section 317 does not impose either of these elements, their argument must fail.  The *Restatement of Torts*, (2d), §317 states:  “A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them if: (a) the servant (i) is upon the premises in possession of the master or upon which the servant is privileged to enter only as his servant . . . and (b) the master (i) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant, and (ii) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. ”  This Court sent the case back for a trial on the issues of whether [...] was acting within the scope of his employment (Pa29-30), and/or whether [...] was negligent in its training and supervision of [...] (Pa26-27).
[brief] ### VOLUME I (CONFIDENTIAL) | Document | Page | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | Notice of Appeal | Pa1 | | Case Information Statement | Pa5 | | [...] Final Decision 9/27/23 | Pa9 | | Reply to [...] 7/18/23\(^1\) | Pa16 | | [...] Initial Decision 6/13/23 | Pa24 | | Correspondence to [...] 3/23/23 | Pa28 | | Petition for Ricci Action Registration 3/3/23 | Pa30 | | Affidavit of [...] | Pa56 | | [...] Eligibility Registration Form | Pa58 | | [...] Request for Amended Benefits Form | Pa60 | | Administrative Denial of Ricci Benefits | Pa61 | | Legislative Notice August 2019 | Pa62 | | Postage Statement | Pa64 | | Universal Document Converter Postcard | Pa66 | | Email to Certifying Officers 8/16/19 | Pa67 | | [...] Quotation of Retirement Benefits | Pa68 | | [...] Special Retirement Approval 7/26/16 | Pa69 | \(^1\) Per R.2:6-1(a)(2), Pa16, Pa24, Pa28, and Pa30 are included in the Appendix because they are germane to the appeal.
[directive] Nadzór kuratora sądowego po zwolnieniu warunkowym, przestępstwo I stopnia - 5 lat  Nadzór kuratora sądowego po zwolnieniu warunkowym, przestępstwo II stopnia - 3 lata  Do you understand that because you have pled guilty to these charges the court must impose a year term of parole supervision and that term will begin as soon as you complete the sentence of incarceration?
[brief] See N.J.S.A. 13:1D-150(d).  DEP fails to offer any explanation as to how the new onsite public access that it seeks to impose on [...]’s property is either meaningful or reasonable.  To the contrary, and despite the Public Access Law’s requirement that DEP consider “the demand for public access” when assessing the extent of access to be required, DEP has made no such finding.  Even under a charitable interpretation of the record below, the closest that DEP has come to justifying its decision to require public access on and across [...]’s property was in the November 10, 2020 In-Water Waterfront Development Permit Environmental Report that accompanied the issuance of the permit (Aa0007-010), where the agency wrote:  The [...] has about 18,000 residents and is bounded by the Manasquan River on its northern border and the Beaverdam Creek along its southern border.  There are limited public access points along the Beaverdam Creek near the applicant's property.  The Borough does not have a Department-approved Municipal Public Access Plan.  Aa0009.  While it is true that the Borough does not have a DEP-approved municipal access plan, [...] disputes DEP’s claim that there are limited public access points near [...]’s property (a claim for which DEP offers no maps or narrative geographic analysis in support).  And merely reciting the total population of a municipality that covers 3.49 square miles of land does nothing to characterize the demand for public access at [...]’s property in particular.  Put simply, the reasoning that DEP offers in support of its conclusion that onsite public access must be provided at [...]’s property is cursory and circular, and represents a flimsy attempt at establishing DEP’s credibility at providing analysis where there is none.  DEP claims that [...]’s challenge to the reasonableness of any public access requirement on the Property, including its requested inquiry into whether nearby existing facilities already provide sufficient public access, is somehow premature and beyond the scope of the case.