ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] ¹  The crossing is also not [...]’s ([...]) property.  [...] publishes an active list of the real property it owns on its webpage.  See https://www.njtransit.com/real-property-owned-nj-transit.  It does not purport to own the subject location.  Prior to the Act’s 1998 amendment, the Act provided that:  It shall not be lawful for any person other than those connected with or employed upon the railroad to walk along the tracks of any railroad except when the same shall be laid upon a public highway.  Any person injured by an engine or car while walking, standing or playing on a railroad or by jumping on or off a car while in motion shall be deemed to have contributed to the injury sustained and shall not recover therefor any damages from the company owning or operating the railroad.  This section shall not apply to the crossing of a railroad by a person at any lawful public or private crossing.  [See Renz v. Penn Cent. Corp., 87 N.J. 437, 440 (1981) (quoting 1903, L. 1903, c. 257, § 55). ]  The 1998 amendment to the Act split this single paragraph into two parts, Subsections (a) and (b), and added a third subsection, (c), excluding minors from its reach.
[brief] THE COURT ERRED BY NOT RECOGNIZING THAT THE INJUNCTION COMPELS THE BOARDS TO VIOLATE PARENTS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND FAILS TO CONSIDER THE DISTRICTS’ IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.  In its decision, the Court gives passing reference, but not due deference, to the Constitutional rights of parents.  See Da131-133.  More importantly, however, the Court’s decision is devoid of any consideration that its injunction compels the District to violate those Fundamental Constitutional Rights and the concomitant liability of the District for these violations.  Id.  Lastly, the Court completely ignores the Districts regulations, which balance transgender students’ rights with the Constitution restraints on schools as government actors.  See Da133, Da162-165, and Da262-265.  In its written Decision, the Court erroneously determined that a Constitutional violation is subordinate to the State’s interest to: ensure that a protected class under a state law against discrimination does not suffer either disparate treatment of disparate impact because of polices requiring parental notification where a student requesting a transgender accommodation or expressing transgender identification specifically requires that their parents or guardian not be notified.  See Da132.  The Court erred because (i) there clearly are Constitutional implications; and (ii) the Court fails to consider the Districts’ process for notification, which properly balances the State’s compelling interest under the LAD and parents’ Fundamental Constitutional Rights.  See Da163-164 and Da263-264.  Indeed, to sustain this decision will result in this being the only aspect of public education where public school staff must defer 100% to the desire of the student, instead of using the staff’s own education, experience and training to communicate and be transparent with parents.  **The Constitutional Violation**
[brief] This Court “may exercise such original jurisdiction as is necessary to the complete determination of any matter on review. ”  *Price v. Himeji, LLC.*, 214 N.J. 263 (2013), citing R. 2:10-5.  Original jurisdiction is particularly appropriate here to avoid further unnecessary litigation.  Since September of 2022, Defendants have known about Plaintiffs’ claims of deterioration and damages from leaks and mold, among other problems that persist.  Their insurance companies have “investigated” these claims since January of 2023 for the apparent sole purpose of finger pointing.  (Pa46)  Defendants have had every opportunity during 2023 and in all of the motions that they filed throughout 2024 to provide their record of events to the courts.
[brief] (26T54:3-10; 55:21 to 56:3).  findings is not a sufficient reason to reverse the trial court’s well-founded conclusions based on the weight of the evidence.  *Rova Farms*, 65 N.J. at 484.  V.  THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE DEFENDANTS LIABLE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH, AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT.
[brief] ”  *Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes*, § 2.13, cmt. b (the “Restatement”).  “Only a clear statement that the developer retains the right to deviate from the uses shown on the map will ordinarily be sufficient to prevent implication of a servitude under the rule stated in this section. ”  *Id.*  “The purchaser of a lot in a subdivision acquires rights to use all the roads, parks, beaches, open spaces, and other areas designated on the plat for common use and enjoyment. ”  *Id.* at § 2.13, cmt. c.  In *Lennig v. Ocean City Ass’n*, 41 N.J. Eq. 606 (1886), the Court held that a map designating as open space land abutting the homeowner’s property and lying between the homeowner’s property and the Atlantic Ocean created easement rights for the homeowner to that open space.
[brief] PLAINTIFF PRESENTED  SUFFICIENT PROOFS FOR A USE VARIANCE APPROVAL UNDER THE MEDICI STANDARD AS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.  (Raised Below: 5T 15:3-20; 22:20-25 through 24:1-13; 53:23-25; 54:1-10)  Should the Court rejects the application of the [...] & [...] standards, the proofs presented by Plaintiff also meet the heightened Medici standard as relied upon by the Defendant.
[brief] The court recognized that, even in inherently beneficial cases, “the local board may reduce the detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions on the use. ”  Sica at 166, citing Ho-HoKus, supra, 47 N.J. at 217.  The primary condition that would have potentially addressed the main negative effects of this project, a reduction in units (which would also reduce impervious coverage, setbacks, parking, etc.), was prohibited by the trial court.  The trial court, having determined that the use of this residential property for senior congregate housing must be approved, should not have barred the Board from considering all conditions that would reduce the negative effects on the zone plan and the neighborhood.  Even if the trial court decided that the Board had been wrong on the law and the way it applied the Sica test to this application, the Board should still have been permitted to exercise its delegated powers, apply its knowledge of the town and the local land use patterns, and impose reasonable conditions for this use in this zone where it is not permitted to lessen the negative impacts.
[directive] 4.8.2  There shall be a strong presumption against the initiation of vehicular pursuits based solely upon motor vehicle violations.  Officers involved in vehicular pursuits must immediately notify both the supervisor and police communications, state the reason for the pursuit, and provide the information required by Addendum B of this Policy.  4.8.3  Vehicular pursuits shall be monitored by a supervisor and shall be terminated if directed to do so by a supervisor, or if the supervisor has not affirmatively authorized the continuation of the pursuit after being notified and given an opportunity to assess the situation.  16
[directive] 8.1.1  In the sections that follow, the details of interviewing law enforcement officers in internal matters will be discussed.  The chart in Figure 2 provides an overview of that information.  Figure 2.  Investigation is  Investigation is CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATIVE  Officer is Prosecutor notification  Obligation to cooperate • •  Treat as any other defendant  Administrative interview form • • SUBJECT  Miranda warning if appropriate  May require special reports • •  No Garrity warning unless prosecutor Cannot charge as a subterfuge • • approves  Right to representative •  May require routine business reports •  No special reports •
[brief] “Arbitrary and Capricious” actions by administrative bodies require a finding of “willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in disregard of their circumstances. ”  Bayshore, supra, 122 N.J. Super. at 189.  As explained in BayshoreE,n “[w]here there is room for two opinions, action is not arbitrary where it is exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached. ”  Id. see also Circus Liquors. Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Tp., 199 NJ. 1, 9-10 (2009) (“[e]ven if [the] court may have reached a different result had it been the initial decision maker, the court may not reverse an agency’s determination absent a clear showing that the agency was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. ”).  In New Jersey “[T]he law presumes that boards of adjustment and municipal governing bodies will act fairly and with proper motives and for valid reasons. ”  Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment, Sea Girt, 45 NJ 268, 296 (1965).  For that reason, “the determination of a local rent control board is presumptively valid, and the burden is on the party challenging the board to prove otherwise by showing that the board’s action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
[brief] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................  1 STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...........................................  3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................  4  LEGAL ARGUMENT .............................................................................  6  POINT I DEFENDANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THERE WAS ANY BASIS TO DISMISS HIS INDICTMENT.  (2T3-14 to 18-4; Pa8)  ..................  6  A.  Defendant Offered No Proof the State Deleted the Adam4Adam Profile, Let Alone That It Did So in Bad Faith.  ...............................  10  B.  As [...] Recognized, the Profile was Not Facially Exculpatory, Thus Failing to Satisfy the Second Hollander Factor.  ............................................................................  17  C.  Defendant Has Ample Comparable Evidence Available to Him and Will Receive the Benefit of an Adverse-Inference Charge.  ...........  22 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................
[brief] [...] graduated from the 92nd Academy Class of the New Jersey State Police.  Pa56.  [...] retired from the New Jersey State Police on a Service Retirement on or about April 1, 2003.  Pa56.  Pa69.  On or about September 11, 2001, September 13, 2001, September 14, 2001, and September 15, 2001, [...] was dispatched to the Command Post at West Street and North Moore Street and/or Ground Zero.  Pa58.  On or about July 8, 2019, “The Bill Ricci World Trade Center Rescue, Recovery, and Cleanup Operations Act” was signed into law (hereinafter referred to as the “Ricci Act”).  P.L. 2019, c. 157.  Under the Ricci Act, the Board of Trustees was required to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to implement the new law.  The Ricci Act states that the Board of Trustees “shall notify members and retirants in the retirement system of the enactment of this act, P.L. 2019, c. 157, within 30 days of enactment. ”  N.J.S.A. 53:5A-10(e)(4).  (Emphasis added).  The Board was required to notify all members of the State Police Retirement System of the Ricci Act by August 7, 2019, including the requirement to “register” by filing a form indicating the dates and locations of service within two (2) years.  On August 8, 2019, more than 30 days after the Ricci Act’s passage, the Division of Pensions distributed an email to all Certifying Officers “advising them of their responsibilities under the Ricci Act. ”  Pa25.  However, while this is cited in the Final Agency Decision, no actual email dated August 8, 2019, was ever produced, only a Memorandum dated “August 2019. ”  Pa62.  On or about August 9, 2019, more than 30 days after the passage of the Ricci Act, the Division of Pensions contracted [...] to mail postcards to retirees.  Pa64.  No “close date” appears on the document.  Pa64.  On or about August 9, 2019, a postcard was allegedly sent to [...].  Pa14.  In support of his request for amended benefits under the Ricci Act, [...] submitted an affidavit that he did not receive any correspondence or postcard from the State Police Retirement Board or the Division of Pensions with respect to the passage of P.L. 2019, c.157 (Chapter 157), the Bill Ricci World Trade Center Rescue, Recovery, and Cleanup Operations Act.
[directive] Enacted H.R. 5578, 114 Enacted H.R. 6 5578.  It is foreseeable that County Prosecutors will likely designate the supervising attorneys of their Sexual Violence Unit, 7 Domestic Violence Unit, and/or Juvenile Units to serve as their designee under this provision.  3  III.  Procedures for Law Enforcement Tracking, Storage, and Retention, of Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE)
[brief] THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS RELEVANT, THUS PROPERLY ADMITTED.  Under this point, defendant makes various arguments asserting that irrelevant, thus prejudicial evidence was allowed in front of the jury to "portray him as a disturbed loner" (Db 25), "a violent and disturbed person" (Db 26), whose use of Adderall "drove him to delusions and caused him to commit the shooting" (Db 30), was degenerated by the State because he lived in his car (Db 35), and was prejudiced by his own words in a recorded jail call (Db 39).  However, none of these arguments have any substantive merit.  A.
[brief] Appellants’ Brief impliedly contends that the Trial Court should not have dismissed their claim for property damage and unpaid medical expenses (economic damages).  However, Appellant’s Brief did not mention or document that Respondent had raised the issue below or document how the Trial Court addressed the issue.  SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE  DIVISION DOCKET NO. [...]  [...] & [...] Plaintiff, v. [...], Defendant LETTER BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF AND APPENDIX
[brief] Notably, defendant admitted to [...] that he cared little for his crime and felt “blank” at the time of the initial sentencing.  (Da48).  Although he reported to [...] that he came to feel remorse, [...] witnessed the evolution of his representations over time and was well within his discretion to reject [...]’s findings.  Aggravating factor nine relates to the “need for deterring the defendant and others from violating the law.
[brief] 6T 40:6-20.  Although its planner reviewed the bulk zoning requirements where senior and assisted living uses are permitted, he admitted that the proposed project does not fit within the floor area ratio even in the zones where permitted.  6T 50:5-20.  The proposed project was testified to be at 20.4 units per acre, whereas the OB-1A zone permits a maximum of 9 units per acre.  6T 51:18-25.  [...]’s planner excluded from his analysis the three senior living facilities in [...] as being too old or small to be comparable.  6T 61:16-24, 65:12-21.  In the view of the Board and its professionals, his analysis lacked the most relevant properties.  Despite his omission of local comparable properties and the intentional decision of the Township to exclude this Property for senior living in 2019, [...]’s planner blindly concluded that the proposed facility “is very appropriate for the location and… would not have a substantial impact, um, on your zoning ordinance.
[brief] We rely upon the Procedural History filed by the Defendant/Respondent [...].  On June 30, 2023, an Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writ was filed by Appellants.  (Pa 51; 2T3-7-2T7-2)  On October 2, 2023, the Trial Court heard the matter and dismissed the Complaint.  (Pa 134; 3T41-14-3T43-12)  LEGAL ARGUMENT
[directive] 3.  note  See pretrial services information the by input automated generally refers the to assessment" risk pretrial "automated term the words, the is by reviewed the before case prosecutors and police to provided are that results assessment and reviewed risk assessment pretrial (noting the if that 3 note Cf. program. services pretrial preliminary computer-generated the from different is program pretrial services the by approved updated charging, of the initial time the at police/prosecutors by initiated assessment risk pretrial pretrial seek to decision inform to the be used should when available, assessment, pretrial risk Directive). of this Section 8 and 7 to pursuant release of revocation or detention of the for general nature the accounts risk-assessment process pretrial automated
[directive] A.  Accompaniment to line ups, photo review sessions, body identification and medical examinations required for evidence.  B.  Victim interviews shall be conducted in as secure, private, and pleasant surroundings as available.  C.  An interpreter shall be made available where the victim does not speak English.  D.  The victim shall be allowed to use the telephone at the police station.  E.  The victim must receive immediate medical care for injuries.  If the victim requests medical attention, it shall be provided through - on site first aid - care for ambulance - transport to medical facility  F.  Procedures shall be established to ensure that medical examinations required for evidence are paid for directly by the law enforcement agency or through eligible claims to the [...].  G.  Every effort shall be made to minimize inconvenience to the victim.  H.  Whenever possible, appointments shall be scheduled at the convenience of the victim.  I.  Victims and Witnesses shall not be forced to wait for long periods of time to be interviewed.  J.  Whenever possible, limitations shall be placed on the number of times the victim must repeat the facts surrounding the offense.  K.  Property return accomplished within 30 days unless evidentiary requirements prevail (not applicable to firearms).
[brief] (Da1-2).  Specifically, the Post Trial Order provides the following, in relevant part:  IT IS on this 10th day of November 2021, that this Court makes the following findings and determinations:  1.  Because Defendant is in breach of the lease due to nonpayment of five months rent, the defendant is not due any refund of fit up costs under Section 4.02 of the Lease; and 4.  Based on the determinations set forth above and set forth in greater detail on the record this date, the Court concludes that the amount of rent now due and owing is $196,669.16.  (Da1-2)  On the day the Post Trial Order was issued, [...] held an additional hearing at which he further articulated his basis for these holdings on the record.
[brief] *Montgomery*, 577 U.S. at 205.  1 Commentaries on the Laws of England at 440–41 (recognizing the obligation of children to parental “subjection and obedience”); Kent, 2 Commentaries on American Law at 207 (providing that children’s duties to their parents include “obedience”); Hodgson, 497 U.S. at 483 (noting that, under the common law, parents had the right, “not merely to be notified of their children’s actions, but to speak and act on their behalf”) ([...], concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[brief] With those restrictions in mind, [...]’s Site Analysis focused on determining the most operationally suitable location that would enable [...] to improve and reinforce existing service reliability with minimal impact to the surrounding properties.  To that end, [...]’s site review and analysis considered potential impacts of each possible site from several perspectives: (1) impacts to residential areas; (2) existing environmental conditions; and (3) engineering considerations.  Potential properties located in residential neighborhoods and/or close to other community-valued buildings (e.g., schools) were disqualified from consideration, because the Facility would not typically be permitted on those properties due to local community discontentment and restrictions under Holmdel zoning ordinances.  Existing environmental conditions—e.g., tree clearing, wetlands, contaminated sites, Preserved Farmland and Green Acres habitats—were also relevant factors; [...] avoided potential sites that had one or more of those environmental conditions.  Finally, [...]’s engineering considerations included the importance of a location at the southern end of the transmission line; minimization of the Facility’s distance to the transmission line; adequacy of the property’s size; sufficient access for inspection, maintenance and repair; property elevation levels; and security.  22.
[brief] (Pa49).  In her statement, [...] acknowledged that defendant—whom [...] knew as “[...]”—had “confided” in her on a “couple of occasions” to vent.  Between midnight and 1:00 a.m. on the morning [...] was killed, defendant called her crying and in an “uproar,” with “revenge . . . in his mind. ”  (6T78-12 to 15; 6T80-1 to 22).  Defendant asked to borrow [...]’s car because he “had something to do. ” (6T81-5 to 17).  She refused and tried to convince him to “let it go,” but he said he was “too far gone. ” (6T81-15 to 25).  [...] --- \(^6\) *State v. Gross*, 121 N.J. 18 (1990) (*Gross I*). stated that defendant “always carried that big gun, the .40,” and his “favorite line” was that he “got .40 for these niggas.  He gonna put .40 in somebody. ” (6T82-24 to 83-5).  On an unspecified date after [...] was killed, defendant told [...] “that the cops traced all the stuff down to him.  They found the gun.  They had his phone.  They seen him on camera going through the light.  They had the girl car, the girl car they put something on the car to try to get the evidence off of it. ” (6T83-9 to 14).  Investigators in fact had observed a vehicle going through a red light on the surveillance.  (6T167-1 to 13).  Police recovered a phone belonging to defendant, but it was unknown whether it was the same device defendant had on him the day of the homicide or if he had any other devices.  (6T167-1 to 169-11; 6T175-15 to 17).  While defendant’s call detail records from the service provider did not indicate that he made any outbound calls between 12:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. on August 11, investigators were unable to extract the data from his cellphone to determine if he communicated over other applications.  (6T88-15 to 89-7; 6T147-18 to 148-1; 6T154-12 to 155-12; 6T169-17 to 170-10).
[brief] –  Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in the above bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law.  Matter underlined thus is new matter.  partnership is purchased or renewed, to obtain coverage for the person, the limited liability partners, the limited liability company members or the partners.  If the business, limited liability partnership, limited liability company or partnership elects to obtain coverage for the self-employed person, limited liability partners, limited liability company members or the partners, the election may only be made at purchase or at renewal and may not be withdrawn during the policy term.  If the business, limited liability partnership, limited liability company or partnership performs services covered under a homeowner's policy or other policies providing comprehensive personal liability insurance for domestic servants, household employees or the dependents thereof, the workers' compensation policy of the business, limited liability partnership, limited liability company or partnership shall have primary responsibility for the payment of benefits.
[brief] (the “Jan. 31, 2011, Opinion and Order”).¹ (Pa0091-137).  In support of this determination, and as discussed further below, [...] made detailed factual findings as to (i) where CVOC releases occurred based on differing plant operations, and (ii) and the start and end dates for each operation that resulted in CVOC releases.  ¹  The Jan. 31, 2011, Opinion and Order was [...]’s last official order before retirement.  (Pa0137).  The Jan. 31, 2011, Opinion and Order found that [...] had proven that it was entitled to insurance coverage for $12,827,154 of the investigation and remediation costs that it incurred as of December 31, 2009.  (Id).  The Jan. 31, 2011, Opinion and Order also held that the allocation of [...]’s covered damages and a determination of [...]’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest would be resolved through subsequent proceedings.  (Pa0137).  Finally, the Jan. 31, 2011, Opinion and Order held that [...] is entitled to insurance coverage consistent with the Opinion for costs incurred after the date of the Opinion.