ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Plaintiffs also argue the trial court “never stated at what point” Plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim “suddenly became frivolous, or what information became available to Plaintiffs to render it so. ” (Pb35).  But in fact, the trial court specifically held that “once the plaintiff[s] knew that there was no deal” between [...] and [...], “I don’t find there was any conceivable cause of action for . . . intentionally interfering with a prospective economic opportunity and I do find that further pursuing the litigation was frivolous. ” (2T18:7-14).  Plaintiffs play coy about when they “supposedly” became aware that [...] and [...] did not consummate a transaction.  (Pb35).  Plaintiffs, however, have conceded that they knew, from the moment they filed their Complaint, that [...] and [...] did not consummate a transaction.  Indeed, as Plaintiffs have acknowledged, their Complaint never alleged that a deal was consummated between [...] and the [...].  (Pa50a-Pa78a).  Thus, Plaintiffs have themselves identified when their case became frivolous: at the very outset.  Plaintiffs suggest their case could not have become frivolous at the outset because the trial court denied [...]’s motion to dismiss.  (Pb35).  The trial court’s mistaken denial of [...]’s motion to dismiss,\(^{13}\) however, does not change the time at which Plaintiffs became aware that no transaction occurred, nor did the trial court’s motion to dismiss ruling afford Plaintiffs a license to continue pursuing frivolous claims.  Plaintiffs also suggest their case did not become frivolous once [...] produced discovery which further evidenced that no transaction occurred.  (Pb36).  The discovery that [...] produced, however, was not open to interpretation -- it simply confirmed what Plaintiffs already knew, which is that no transaction occurred.  D.
[directive] The victim of the crime(s) was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offense and the defendant resides in a household with other minor children or is the parent of a minor child identified in Section III.  Section I  A.  Defendant: Name: ____________________________________________  Sex: DOB: ______________________  Social Security #: Address: Telephone #: Complaint #: Section II  A.  The defendant was found guilty of the offense(s) identified below: (check all that apply) simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a), false imprisonment, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-3, lewdness, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-4(a), endangering the welfare of an incompetent person, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-7, or an act of domestic violence predicated on any of the disorderly or petty disorderly persons offenses listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a).  Section III  The defendant resides with minor children or is the parent of a minor child or children identified below:  Name: ____________________________________________  Sex: __________  Age: ________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________  _________________________________________________________________________________________  Relationship to defendant: ___________________________________________________________________  Name: ____________________________________________  Sex: __________  Age: ________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________  _________________________________________________________________________________________  Relationship to defendant: ___________________________________________________________________  Name: ____________________________________________  Sex: __________  Age: ________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________  _________________________________________________________________________________________  Relationship to defendant: ___________________________________________________________________  Name: ____________________________________________  Sex: __________  Age: ________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________  _________________________________________________________________________________________  Relationship to defendant: ___________________________________________________________________  Section IV  Information on Criminal History:
[brief] ”).  This statutory term ‘actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct’ has been held to “connote commission of a forbidden act with actual knowledge that the act is forbidden. ”  See Van Engelen v. O’Leary, 323 N.J. Super. 141, 151 (App. Div. 1999) (cleaned up); see also id. at 154 (emphasizing “[c]arelessness, unreasonable conduct or even noncompliance with substantive law” would not be the equivalent of such forbidden acts).  Here, [...] has failed to plead any essential facts from which to reasonably infer that the Prosecutor Defendants’ “conduct was outside the scope of [their] employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
[directive] The court shall state the reasons the record for immediately commencing or on of deferring the start a custodial term.  that regard, the court must consider and In of of make findings the risk danger to the public, the risk flight, the seriousness of on the offense, and other factors relevant to public safety.  The court should also consider the positions of the juvenile, the juvenile's parent(s)/guardian(s), the prosecution, and any victims.  - [...]
[brief] | | | **Goffe v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp.**, | 3 | | 238 N.J. 191, 207 (2019) | | | **Kieffer v. Best Buy**, | 3 | | 205 N.J. 213, 222 (2011)  | | | **Serico v. Rothberg**, | 3 | | 234 N.J. 168, 178 (2018)  | | | Rules | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | Rule 4:6-2(e) | 3 | | Statutes | | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-7 | 3 |
[brief] The granting or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, subject to the Rule 4:46-2 standard that governs a ruling on a summary judgment motion.  Schwartz v. Menas, 251 N.J. 556, 570, 279 A.3d 436 (2022).  That standard requires the appellate court to “determine whether ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law. ’ ”  Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582, 243 A.3d 633 (2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).
[brief] And so what I’m asking you is how are we going to figure out, for page one of P-9, what goods were sent by [...] to [...] to cover check number 2043?  A:  I don’t – it would have been the – it would have been pipe.  That’s all I – that’s all I know at this point.  (3T106:19 – 3T107:2)  (emphasis supplied)  Joann [...]’s relentless mantra that “pipe” was purchased from [...] provides no pertinent information as to the specifics of the exact type and quantity and gauge of “pipe” that was allegedly purchased.
[brief] Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Special Hearing Officer shall provide the Court, the Township and the Respondents with his recommendation as to whether the Respondents’ site plan should be approved, denied, or approved with conditions and in the form of a resolution.  Any comments or objections to the Special Hearing Officer’s recommendations set forth in the resolution shall be filed with the Court no later than ten (10) days from the date of the recommendation.  The Special Hearing Officer shall set forth such findings of fact and conclusions necessary, and to appropriately summarize the evidence presented, so as to enable the Court to enter Judgment.  The Court’s Order as to the site plan (and, if/as applicable, subdivision) shall be considered a preliminary and final site plan (and, as applicable, subdivision) approval for purposes of filing an application for a building permit.
[brief] As set forth above, [...] and [...] possess information that goes to the very heart of Plaintiffs’ claims.  No one else is better able to discuss the user content and information [...] made available and monetized, the privacy promises it made, and what happened with [...].  Plaintiffs only seek the collection, review, and production of two critical custodial files.  [...] has already collected, reviewed, and is producing the files of 81 custodians.  As [...] instructed, this is not the kind of case where it is enough to assert that adding [...] and [...] as custodians will be expensive or overly burdensome.  Tr. of the Mar. 5, 2020  Case Mgmt. Conference, Ex. 30 at 29:3-12.  The burdens are substantially outweighed by the benefits.
[brief] It does not require the jury to record its findings on a defense.  In State v. Branch, 301 N.J. Super. 307, 328 (App. Div. 1997), rev’d o.g., 155 N.J. 317 (1998), the Appellate Division held that the omission of self-defense from the verdict sheet was not plain error because “there is no verdict per se for self-defense. ”  If the State here had not sustained its burden of disproving self-defense, the jury’s verdict would have been not guilty, an option for which the verdict sheet provided on each substantive offense submitted to the jury.  (Da32-33).  There was no error with the verdict sheet as drafted by the court and submitted to the jury.  In any event, even if this court found that not placing self-defense on the verdict sheet was error, it was not plain error.  The trial court’s oral instructions conveyed the State’s burden of proof on the elements of the offenses and on disproving self-defense, and the court provided the jury with its instructions for use during deliberations.  (6T149-10 to 11).  The jury thus had not only the trial court’s accurate instructions given verbally but in writing, as well.  *Cuff*, 239 N.J. at 342.  The trial court’s instructions serve as the “primary guide” for the jury, not the verdict sheet.  *Id.* at 341.
[brief] (Aa4).  According to the petition, [...]’s proposed solar project would be a revenue-generating use of an abandoned waterbody.  (Aa4).  The proposed site is located on a sand mine that has a series of dredge ponds formed from mining pits.  (Aa4).  According to the proposal, the ponds would be connected to form a single, larger 81.5 acre pond.  (Aa4).  The project would be constructed in phases as the property is mined.  (Aa4).  [...] provided a lease agreement between itself and the property owner, [...] Natural Sand, LLC, as well as a letter from the [...] (“Commission”) stating that the proposed facility was consistent with the land use priorities of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan; however, the Commission did not receive an application for a Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.  (Aa4).  In response to [...]’s petition, Board Staff (“Staff”) submitted three sets of discovery questions.
[brief] Generally, “the record made before the Board is the record upon which the correctness of the Board's action must be determined, and the receipt of testimony before the Superior Court is no substitute for this requirement. ”  Kramer v. Board of Adjustment, 45 N.J.268, 289 (1965) (citing Kempner v. Edison Tp., 54 N.J. Super. 408, 416-17 (App. Div. 1959)).  However, the usual rules don’t apply.
[brief] 4 - **Dunkin’ Donuts of Am., Inc. v. Middletown Donut Corp.**, 100 N.J. 166 (1985)  6 - **Forman v. Grant Lunch Corp.**, 113 N. J. Eq. 175 (1933) ............................................  7 - **In re J.W.D.**, 149 N.J. 108 (1997) .................................................................................. 4, 5 - **Jackson v. Manasquan Sav. Bank**, 271 N.J. Super. 136 (Law Div. 1993)  .............  13 - **Kavanaugh v. Quigley**, 63 N.J. Super. 153 (App. Div. 1960) .......................................  5 - **Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan**, 140 N.J. 366 (1995)  3, 4 - **Martinez v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.**, 145 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div. 1976), certif. denied, 74 N.J. 253 (1977) ................................................................. 8 - **Mfrs.’ Fin. Co. v. McKey**, 294 U.S. 442, 55 S.Ct. 444, 79 L.Ed. 982 (1935)  .......  6 - **Natovitz v. Bay Head Realty Co.**, 142 N.J.Eq. 456 (E. & A.1948) ......................... 6, 7 - **Pearl Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Watts**, 69 N.J. Super. 198 (App. Div. 1961) ...... 4, 5 Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474 (1974)  .................................................................3  Salvatore v. Trace, 109 N.J. Super. 83 (App. Div. 1969), aff'd 55 N.J. 362 (1970)  ........................................................................13  Santamaria v. Shell E. Petroleum Prods., 116 N.J. Eq. 26 (1934)  .......................7  St. Pius X House of Retreats, Salvatorian Fathers v. Diocese of Camden, 88 N.J. 571 (1982)  .................................................................4  State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595 (1990)  .................................................................4  Stehr v. Sawyer, 40 N.J. 352 (1963)  .................................................................13  Other Authorities
[brief] As much as the Defendants attempt to paint this case as involving an “either or” choice between claims based on religious discrimination versus claims based on disability discrimination, the truth is that the way the facts of Plaintiff’s case developed, these issues were frequently intertwined.  As such, while the Jury may not have found in favor of religious discrimination, that does not mean that comments/issues related to religious discrimination are irrelevant insofar as they relate to causation of Plaintiff’s psychiatric (and therefore disability) issues.  case or describe such discrimination in her Answers to Interrogatories so as to make her trial testimony concerning such issues a surprise is simply not supported by the factual record.  As for Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, she testified extensively as to how she was on the receiving end of numerous discriminatory comments and actions from the Defendants and other [...] employees relating to her Jewish Faith and Anxiety disorder.  In fact, she testified that these comments/actions were so numerous that Plaintiff could not recall the specific dates and times of every single comment because they were too numerous to count.  See RT at 49:24-50:15; 121:1-2; 147:14-148:12.  She readily conceded that because of her anxiety issues, she has trouble remembering specific dates.  See id. at 52:5-7.  Nonetheless, Plaintiff was able to testify extensively and directly concerning a variety of specific acts of discrimination that she was subject to as a result of her Jewish Faith and Anxiety issues, as set forth in the paragraphs that follow.
[directive] As of February 8, 2021, according to the AOC, 4,937 detained defendants were being held pretrial on the following categories of offenses: 1,842 on a first-degree offense; 1,780 on a second-degree offense; 1,044 on a third-degree offense; 243 on a fourth- offense.1 degree offense; and 28 on a disorderly persons  As of December 4, 2020, the Office of the Public Defender estimated that about 650 of its clients charged with second-, third-, or fourth-degree crimes had been detained for six months or longer, and that an additional 400 clients charged with first-degree offenses were in the same position.
[directive] Prior domestic incident of assault in a police report or criminal record (against current or former Partner or Partner’s child)  Prior domestic:  The Defendant previously assaulted a Partner or a Partner’s child, and it is recorded in a police report or criminal record.  The incident must include physical contact, the use or attempted use of a weapon to contact the victim’s body, or a threat of harm ✔ made while displaying a weapon.  If you do not have a detailed description of the incident, count a charge of assault or other violent offense against a Partner or Partner’s child as a domestic incident.  (Note: a charge is not required.)  The prior incident must have been reported to the police.  ✔  The prior incident must have occurred on a separate occasion, before the Index Assault.  If the Index Assault is part of a cluster of ✔ assaults documented in 1 police report, count any domestic assault against a Partner or Partner’s child that occurred at least 24 hours before the Index Assault as a prior domestic incident.  Incidents involving only pets or property do not count for this Item.  ✘  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________  11.  Prior non-domestic incident of assault in a police report or criminal record (against any person other than a Partner or a Partner’s child)
[brief] This failure is the functional equivalent of failing to brief an issue at all, and it should be rejected on that basis alone.  An issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived.  Jefferson Loan Co. v. Session, 397 N.J.Super. 520, 525 n. 4(App.Div. 2008); Zavodnick v. Leven, 340 N.J.Super. 94, 103(App.Div. 2001).
[brief] II.  THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT COUNTERCLAIMS ARISING FROM VL NORTH’S USE AND ENFORCEMENT OF DISGUISED PENALTY CLAUSES IN RESIDENTIAL LEASES (Decided below at 2T24-21 – 2T31-6)  A.  The trial court erred in ruling, at the pleading stage, that [...]’s practices did not constitute abusive, unconscionable, and/or deceptive commercial conduct (Decided below at 2T24-21 – 2T27-18)  The CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 et seq., was enacted to protect New Jersey consumers from precisely the type of improper practices described by [...].
[brief] Plaintiff argued below that the time-unit charge and the life expectancy charge go “hand-in-hand” such that the time-unit argument is the only reason a party would request the life-expectancy charge.  6T.25:10 to 26:4.  That argument defies common sense and the plain language of the charges.  Plaintiff’s other arguments defy the record.  Both the “Life Expectancy” and “Time Unit Rule” charges are contained within MCJC 8.11G.
[brief] See Ukrainian Nat’l Urban Renewal, 151 N.J. Super. at 396 (holding arbitrator’s review of evidence which led to “factual determinations concerning the merits of the dispute…are not reviewable by the courts”).  [...]’s project-specific analyses underlying the EGP awards for various projects stray far afield from N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-24(a)’s intention to only “correct mistakes that are obvious and simple. ”  [...] thus failed to demonstrate evident mathematical miscalculations or imperfections as to form by the Arbitrator.  A court is only empowered to correct or modify “simple arithmetical errors, such as $2 + 2 = 5$, or obvious mistakes in identification, such as 14 Hill Street instead of 41 Hill Street.
[directive] V (Enhanced Extended Term)  Defendant is eligible for an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to 2C:43-6f and has 10 or more N.J.S.A. criminal history points, not counting the least serious prior drug distribution-type offense used to establish the defendant’s eligibility for an extended term pursuant 2C:43-6f. to N.J.S.A.  Examples:  The defendant has two separate prior 2C:35- convictions for violation of N.J.S.A. 5 imposed at different times — a 2nd- degree conviction, and a 3rd-degree conviction.  The 3rd-degree prior conviction is used to establish eligibility for an 2C:43- extended term pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6f.  The 2nd-degree prior conviction is worth 12 criminal history points.  Thus, this defendant would fall under Criminal History Category V (Enhanced Extended Term).  The defendant has two separate prior 2C:35- convictions for violation of N.J.S.A. 5, both graded as 3rd-degree crimes.  One of these prior convictions is used to establish the defendant’s eligibility for an 2C:43- extended term pursuant to N.J.S.A. 6f.  The remaining 3rd-degree prior conviction is worth 6 points.  If the defendant has no other record of criminal convictions, he would fall under Criminal History Category IV (Extended Term).
[directive] ); camera, room interview stationhouse camera, worn admission/confession; an made defendant the whether the (specifying recorded electronically was the defendant by statement admission any whether room camera, interview stationhouse camera, worn body camera, dash e.g., recording, of type etc.); of type (specifying the recording electronic an on captured was conduct offense whether the phone cell witness's camera, surveillance camera, worn body camera, dash e.g., recording, Page 50 etc.); camera, up, show e.g., procedure, of type the (specifying used were procedures identification whether etc.); line-up, array, photo victim witness; the of acquaintance or stranger a is suspect whether the victim the whether and known, when injury the of extent the injured, victim was whether a medical services; or declined hospital the to taken was any; if weapon involved, of type the e.g., of evidence, type (specifying recovered or seized evidence was physical any whether or tool burglars merchandise, cash, stolen contraband, weapons, other paraphernalia, drugs, instrumentalities); or implements other prescription marijuana, crack, cocaine, heroin, (e.g., substance dangerous controlled of type etc.); opiate, or person from the seized or scene, was from the recovered was physical evidence whether vehicle; defendant's or the from defendant, of control the method, (specifying evidence or destroy conceal, discard, to attempted defendant whether the sink/toilet); flushing down throwing, dropping or seat, car or furniture under hiding e.g., of flight, type (specifying arrest resist otherwise or flee to attempted defendant the whether pursuit); vehicle motor chase, e.g., foot (e.g., person any injury of to or injury threat in resulted flight attempted or flight whether police whether safety, public endangered that manner in operated a was whether vehicle a person; any to injury any resulting of extent the and weapons), fired or drew hospital; taken to and whether of injury the so, extent if and, assaulted was officer an whether the offense; risk placed by otherwise at or present were children whether drugs; or alcohol of influence the under be to appeared defendant the whether agency has or officer whether the and/or using drugs, to admitted defendant whether the drug-dependent; is defendant the that believe reason to stolen; service or merchandise of type the of description general a Page 51 whether any victims were whether burglary involved a residence (i.e., a home invasion), and a of burglary; present at the time the in manner endangered public safety; stolen operated a that whether a vehicle was been communicated to the officers) by information about the offense had whether relevant recording of radio obtain a dispatcher (to alert the prosecutor of the need to preserve and a 9-1-1 call whether information been to the agency by a and had provided communications) obtain recording of the 9-1-1 call). of need preserve and a (to alert the prosecutor the to of this Directive.