ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] 4.2  Upon the initiation of a pursuit, the pursuing officer shall immediately activate all emergency lights, siren, headlights, motor vehicle recorder (MVR), if equipped, and body worn camera (BWC), if equipped.  4.3  Once the pursuit has been initiated, the primary unit must immediately notify communications and a supervisor, providing as much of the following information as is known: (a) reason for the pursuit; (b) direction of travel and designation and location of the roadway; (c) traffic conditions; (d) presence of pedestrians; (e) identification of the violator’s vehicle (year, make, model, color, vehicle registration number, and other identifying characteristics); (f) information on the identity of the driver, if known; (g) number of occupants; (h) the speed of the pursued vehicle; and (i) other information that may be helpful in deciding whether to terminate the pursuit or in resolving the incident.  4.4  The pursuing officer shall have a continuing duty to update the supervisor and communications on the above information as the incident develops.  7  USE OF FORCE POLICY
[directive] Skorygowany formularz udostępniony na mocy Dyrektywy #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 10080-Polish strona 3 z 8 Revised Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 10080-Polish page 3 of 8  Czy rozumie Pan(i), że wyrok dożywotniego nadzoru 4.  (2)  [Tak/Yes]  [Nie/No] [Nie dotyczy/NA] społecznego oznacza, że: przez co najmniej 15 lat będzie Pan(i) nadzorowany(a) tak samo jak na zwolnieniu warunkowym, oraz będzie Pan(i) podlegać warunkom właściwym dla zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa publicznego i sprzyjającym rehabilitacji, obejmującym między innymi poradnictwo psychologiczne, ograniczenia w dostępie i korzystaniu z Internetu oraz inne ograniczenia, włącznie z ograniczeniami dotyczącymi miejsca zamieszkania, pracy oraz podróży? Do you understand that being sentenced to community supervision for life means that: you will be supervised for at least 15 years as if on parole, and subject to conditions appropriate to protect the public and foster Internet access or use; rehabilitation, including, but not limited to counseling; and other restrictions, which may include restrictions on where you can live, work or travel?
[brief] Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161(1985).  The conduct prong has typically focused on what dangers the employer knew of in advance of an accident, whether the employer deceived its employees or others like government regulatory agencies, or whether the employer took some affirmative action to make an inherently dangerous situation even more dangerous thereby exposing its employees to increased risk of injury.  By way of example, in *Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.*, 101 N.J. 161 (1985) it was alleged that plaintiffs’ employer and doctors intentionally exposed employees to asbestos and then, to prevent them from leaving the workforce, knowingly aggravated their injuries by conspiring to fraudulently conceal from them knowledge of diseases caused by asbestos exposure.  While it was undisputed that the employees’ claims were compensable under the Worker's Compensation Act, the Court found that under these circumstances the employees should be given the opportunity to prove that their employer - by virtue of its alleged deception - committed an intentional wrong and should be held to account for that outside the exclusivity of the Act.  In so doing, the Court did away with the need to demonstrate a deliberate intent to injure, instead adopting a "substantial certainty" test.  *Millison*, 101 N.J. at 170 - 175.  However, the Court cautioned that:  "[T]he mere knowledge and appreciation of a risk—something short of substantial certainty—is not intent.  The defendant who acts in the belief or consciousness that the act is causing an appreciable risk of harm to another may be negligent, and if the risk is great the conduct may be characterized as reckless or wanton, but it is not an intentional wrong."  Id. at 177.  Significantly though, the Court also cautioned that even if a known risk "later blossoms into reality," that alone is not sufficient.  Id. at 178.  As the Court stressed, "[W]e must demand a virtual certainty."  Id. at 178 (emphasis added).  By way of further example, in Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co., 176 N.J. 397, 402-403 (2003), the court found that the employer’s purposeful disregard of repeated OSHA violations which OSHA characterized as “[s]erious,” meaning the condition could result in “a substantial probability [of] death or serious physical harm,” along with testimony from a manager of the employer admitting knowledge that someone could die from the employer’s inaction in correcting those violations was sufficient to constitute an intentional wrong.
[brief] “The rationale for performing the [divided-attention] tests in drugged driving cases is that any drug that impairs driving ability will also impair the driver’s ability to perform divided attention tests, which help evaluate a driver’s ‘psychomotor’ skills. ”  Id. at 555.  The “[e]ye examinations can reveal whether the driver has ingested drugs that may detrimentally affect such things as the driver’s visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, ability to track objects, coordination, and other driving-related skills. ”  Id.  Even if the officer had reasonably believed that [...] might be under the influence, conducting field sobriety tests should have been the next reasonable step.  See [...] & [...], An Examination of the Validity of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test in Detecting Drug Impairment Using Data from the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, 15 Traffic Injury Prevention (2014) (Da 25-32) (confirming that the standardized field sobriety tests are useful in identifying central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, CNS depressants, narcotic analgesics, and cannabis, as well as alcohol).
[brief] ”  State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 42 (2000).  “The charge must provide a ‘comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must determine, including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may find. ’”  Concepcion, 111 N.J. at 379 (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287-88 (1981)).  Nonetheless, it is generally left to “the sound discretion of the trial judge to decide when and how to comment on the evidence. ”  State v. Pigueiras, 344 N.J. Super. 297, 317 (App. Div. 2001) (citing State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32, 45 (2000)).  When considering a jury instruction, our Supreme Court “has repeatedly held that portions of a charge alleged to be erroneous cannot be dealt with in isolation but the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect.
[brief] [...] certified that he participated in the rescue, recovery, and/or cleanup at the World Trade Center site between September 11, 2001, and October 11, 2001, or September 11, 2001, and/or September 12, 2001.  [...] submitted the Ricci Act Eligibility Registration Form and Request for Amended Benefits Form with his affidavit.  With his Request for Amended Benefits Form, [...] supplied medical documentation of his 9/11 illnesses.  On March 3, 2023, a Petition to the [...] was filed on behalf of [...] and many others.
[brief] (2T7-4 to 7; 2T8-23 to 9-1).  [...] and [...] agreed to cooperate in a controlled delivery of the marijuana to defendant in New Jersey by March 1, 2017.  (2T7-4 to 8-23).  The Illinois State Police contacted the Illinois Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), which then contacted [...] in the New Jersey State Police Drug Trafficking North Unit who became the lead investigator for this case.
[brief] The failure of the [...] side of the family to reach out to [...] is emblematic of the fallout between the two sides of the family that had been on-going for years.  The notion that [...] or his family would reach out to [...] upon discovering the 1998 Deed in 2016 and make inquiries is absurd.  For these reasons the court finds that the December 10, 1998 Deed is void due to the legal insignificance (since title was already transferred from [...] to [...]); the patently false statement in the body of the Deed as to the names of the grantor and grantee; and, the fact that [...] knowingly signed his brother’s name.
[brief] In [...] the Court observed:  “Pertinent to our standard of review, it is undisputed that [...] signed the Separation Agreement to resolve the disciplinary action.  The Agreement does not mention [...]'s alleged PTSD-addiction disability, which has since vanished or materially diminished.  Rather, the Police Department dropped the disciplinary charges in exchange for [...] irrevocably resigning, and for no other reason. ” (Ibid, at 267) that would be acceptable to the [...] in that legal forum.
[directive] (preencher somente se o crime ocorreu em 1º de fevereiro de 4.  (b)  [Sim/Yes]  [Não/No]  [Não 2018 ou após esta data) corresponde/NA]  Você entende que se está se declarando culpado pelo crime de colocar em risco o bem-estar de um menor segundo os termos da lei 2C:24-4b(5)(b)(iii) ou líder de rede de pornografia infantil N.J.S.A. nos termos da lei 2C:24-4.1, ou por tentativa de cometer N.J.S.A. qualquer um destes crimes e o crime ocorreu no dia 1º de fevereiro de 2018 ou após esta data, além de qualquer outra sentença e mediante petição do promotor público, o juiz irá impor uma sentença especial de supervisão vitalícia de liberdade condicional, a menos que o juiz determine nos autos que a supervisão vitalícia de liberdade condicional não seja necessária para proteger a população ou para impedi-lo de cometer atividades criminosas no futuro? (only complete if the offense occurred on or after February 1, 2018) Do you understand that if you are pleading guilty to the crime of endangering the welfare of a child pursuant to 2C:24-4b(5)(b)(iii) or leader of a N.J.S.A. child pornography network pursuant to 2C:24-4.1, or an attempt to N.J.S.A. commit either of these offenses and the offense occurred on or after February 1, 2018, in addition to any other sentence, and upon motion of the prosecutor, the court shall impose a special sentence of parole supervision for life, unless the court finds on the record that parole supervision for life is not needed to protect the community or deter you from future criminal activity?
[brief] “Moreover, the approach to fair market value now urged by the Defendants is directly contrary to the position they took in open court and in their pleadings, where they fully embraced and even urged a date-of-death approach based on appraisals. ”  (Pb23)  DEFENDANTS:  While Defendants did request a court order for appraisals based upon the Settlor’s date of death, [...] did not agree to [...]’s purchase price of $360,000 for the Florida Property and [...]’s purchase price of $601,000 for the Boonton Property.  Furthermore, the fact that Defendants advocated for their own best interests does not constitute wrongdoing.  Unlike the Trustee, Defendants owed no fiduciary duties to the other parties.  Therefore, [...] had the right to advocate for his own best interests, especially since the Trustee had commenced adversarial litigation against Defendants, thereby violating her fiduciary duties of loyalty and impartiality pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:31-55 and N.J.S.A. 3B:31-56.  Additionally, nothing in the January 10, 2022 Hearing Transcript (1T) or the January 25, 2022 Order (Da14-15) indicates that the appraisal results were intended to be final and binding for determining the purchase prices of the Boonton and Florida Properties.  Instead, the appraisals were meant to provide relevant information to assist the parties in negotiating buyout terms.  (1T24-25)  (1T31)  PLAINTIFF: “At that point they manufactured the argument that the Trustee was under a duty to first convey both properties to all three of the beneficiaries, only after which the shares could be bought out.
[directive] Court Staff Procedures for Providing Copies of Expunged or Sealed Records Ordered by Superior Court or Municipal Court Court Staff Procedures for Providing Copies of Expunged or Sealed Records Ordered by Superior Court or Municipal Court  The following procedures are to be followed when individuals (or their attorneys), seek own copies of their expunged or sealed records.  A juvenile (under age 18) must have their parent or attorney make the request for the expunged or sealed record.  Third-party requestors are not entitled to these records under this procedure.  Procedure  Individuals seeking copies of their own expunged or sealed records shall: Complete the attached Record Request Form and return it in person to the • court that granted the expungement or ordered the case sealed.  A directory of court addresses is available at: www.njcourts.gov.  Present photo identification to verify they are the subject of the records • requested:  A government issued photo identification, including but not limited to a driver’s license with photo, county identification with photo, passport, is required.  Requests submitted by an attorney on behalf of their client do not require • photo ID, but the Record Request Form is required and must include the attorneys’ ID number.  There is no application fee, although copy fees may apply (see Directive • #03-11 and Supplement to Directive #03-11 dated March 7, 2017).  Court staff shall:  View and record the type of photo identification document presented by the • individual on the Record Request Form.  Verify that the individual requesting the records is the subject of the • expunged or sealed records.  If there is any question about the identification presented, staff should seek guidance from their Division Manager or their Criminal, Family or Municipal Court Judge.  If approved and the Judge has completed an Order Permitting Release of • Expunged or Sealed Records (CN 12831), provide copies of the requested documents to the individual or attorney.  Attachment 3  Requestor Instructions for Obtaining a Certification of Expungement by Supreme Court Order Requestor Instructions for Obtaining a Certification of Expungement when Ordered by the Supreme Court
[brief] In late-November 2021, the Parties resumed efforts to schedule negotiations sessions.  [...] emailed [...] that he had presented the [...]’s position regarding the Bargaining Council to the rest of the Board, but that the Board was still requesting the ground rule to exclude the [...]’s Bargaining Council members from negotiations sessions.  When he proposed a negotiations session for December 8, 2021, [...] demanded that the [...] agree to exclude its Bargaining Council from this meeting.  (Pa084-Pa085).  The [...] replied that it was not going to agree to a ground rule before the first negotiations session.  [...] answered that the Board attorney would be filing unfair practice charges.  (Pa083-Pa084).  In response to the threat, the [...] agreed, for this meeting only, to move forward with a meeting on December 8, 2021, without the presence of its Bargaining Council.  The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ground rules, including the role of the Bargaining Council.  (Pa068); (Pa082-Pa083).  At the December 8, 2021 meeting, the Board maintained its stance that it would not allow the [...]’s Bargaining Council to participate in negotiation sessions.  The [...] countered that it had the right to include its Bargaining Council members during the negotiation sessions.  The Parties exchanged proposals about the Bargaining Council’s role during negotiations but were unable to reach an agreement on the issue.  (Pa068).  The Parties, though, did agree at the time to exchange proposals for a successor contract by the end of January 2022.  (Pa068).  On or around January 14, 2022, the Board filed its Unfair Practice Charges against the [...].  (Pa068).  The Board notified the [...] of these charges via the Board attorney contacting the [...] UniServ Field Representative for the [...] at the time, [...], and [...] emailing the [...] on January 15, 2022.  (Ra002-Ra003).  The [...] responded to the news by reiterating that it was still interested in reaching a compromise with the Board regarding the Bargaining Council.  (Ra001-Ra002).  The Board filed these charges about two weeks before the Parties exchanged their initial contract proposals.  (Pa068).
[brief] Thus, Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) requires the first pleading of a party to include a certification as to whether the matter is the subject of any other pending action and whether there is any other party who should be joined.  Rule 4:5-1(b)(2) further provides that "[t]he court may compel the joinder of parties in appropriate circumstances, either upon its own motion or that of a party."  In addition, a party in a related pending action may seek intervention in the newly filed action pursuant to Rule 4:33, consolidation of the cases pursuant to Rule 4:38-1, [*11] "or . . . whatever other steps may be appropriate to protect [its] interests."  Pretrial and case management conferences provide the court with additional opportunities to assure that related cases are processed in a manner which is fair to the parties involved and conserves judicial resources.  Id. at 299-300 (citations omitted) (alterations in original).  Where a “first pleading” has disclosed the existence of another action, the in which the first-pleading has been filed can elect to consolidate the related cases if they are within New Jersey or facilitate the parties to seek consolidation or transfer of cases pending in different states.
[brief] Receive and review mailing from Plaintiff’s counsel regarding discovery.  Receive and review Order from Court.  | .25 | $95.00 | $4,769.00 | | 9 | 10/14/21 |  Pull documents review with [...] and received from [...] and review for potential use at tomorrow’s deposition.  Emails with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding depositions.  Review translator protocols.  | 2.2 | $836.00 | $5,605.00 | | 10| 12/9/21 |  Email from/to counsel regarding [...]’s deposition and status of discovery.  Email to the client regarding . . . [redacted].  File opposition to Motion to Amend.
[brief] II.  THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, RELEVANT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD NOT BE OVERTURNED.  The decisions of the trial court were supported by competent, relevant and credible evidence and should not be overturned.  The standard of appellate review is set forth in R. 2:10-2, which provides:  An error or omission shall be disregarded by the appellate court unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result, but the appellate court may, in the interest of justice, notice plain error not brought to the attention of the trial or appellate court.  As the court stated in Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins. Co., 56 N.J. 474 (1974):
[brief] *E. Brunswick Sewerage Auth. v. E. Mill Assocs., Inc.*, 365 N.J. Super. 120, 125 (App. Div. 2004).  “Importantly, ‘[a] contract 'should not be interpreted to render one of its terms meaningless. ’”  *C.L. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs.*, 473 N.J. Super. 591, 599 (App. Div. 2022) (quoting *Porreca v. City of Millville*, 419 N.J. Super. 212, 233 (App. Div. 2011)).  “When a trial court's decision turns on its construction of a contract, appellate review of that determination is de novo.
[brief] [6T 28-12 to 28-17].  He noted that the project advanced several specific goals of the Montville’s Master Plan, including that the project was responsive to the environmental issues, preserves the physical characteristics of the Property, considered and was compatible with the aesthetic character of the neighborhood, and provides additional housing choices to Montville’s residents, particularly the frail elderly.  [6T 28-24 to 32-9].  He offered an opinion that the [...]’s decision not to recommend the Property for multi-level senior housing in a recent Amendment to the Township’s Master Plan (the “MPA”) (Da71) was irrelevant to the Board’s consideration of the use variance because the use is inherently beneficial and the enhanced quality of proof under *Medici v. BPR Co., Inc.*, 107 N.J. 1 (1987), did not apply.
[brief] See Clark, 251 N.J. at 293 (explaining that “it would be counterintuitive for suspects to be told that they have the right to not speak . . . if at the same time their invocation of th[is] right[] could be used against them at trial”).  The jury heard [...] repeatedly decline to answer questions about how recently he had been in New Jersey, a refusal that led to a clear inference of guilt.  The admission of his invocation of his right to silence in response to questions violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
[brief] IN THE MATTER OF THE : SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  PETITION OF NEW JERSEY : APPELLATE DIVISION NATURAL GAS COMPANY : DOCKET NO. [...] FOR A DETERMINATION : CONCERNING THE : HOLMDEL REGULATOR : STATION PURSUANT TO : N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 -- 2017 : PETITION AND IN THE : MATTER OF THE PETITION : OF NEW JERSEY NATURAL : GAS COMPANY FOR A : DETERMINATION : CONCERNING THE : HOLMDEL REGULATOR : STATION PURSUANT TO : N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 -- 2018 : PETITION : INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT, [...]
[brief] [...] confirmed that no Estate accounts were opened nor was an EIN established.  (R-268)  [...] then certified in Paragraph 12: 12.  Based upon this information, I subsequently informed [...] that [...] did not take out an EIN for the Estate, and that the only avenue to obtain more information would be to make a request with the IRS.  (R-757)  The parties next appeared via Zoom court on April 15, 2021.
[brief] The court finds the assertions made by defendant to be incredible under the totality of the circumstances…the court’s observations of defendant at trial do not support her assertions that she misunderstood questions and facts at the time she executed the documents being challenged herein, at her depositions or at trial…  The court finds defendant has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she was forced or coerced to sign the documents in question.  The court finds she signed the documents freely and voluntarily.  [A229, Op. at 23 (emphasis added)].  Next, Defendant misreads Curry v. Curry, 108 N.J. Super. 527 (App Div. 1970) in claiming default should be vacated liberally in divorce cases.
[brief] (Pb21-23)  The Blighted Areas clause provides necessary constitutional grounding for tax exemptions that would otherwise violate the principle that property is to be assessed according to general laws.  Exemptions that are not necessary to obtain financing for a redevelopment project lose the connection to redevelopment goals required by the Constitution.  Exemptions that are not necessary to obtain financing for a redevelopment project lose the connection to redevelopment goals required by the Constitution.
[brief] For example, belittling your new spouse by telling her that you’re watering flowers wrong and to go so far as to say, “we have videos in the house, we can watch a video...I know what you did” can make a spouse not want to stay in the marriage (2T87-3).  Recording Defendant without her knowledge was an invasion of her privacy.  Further, the Court accurately highlighted and emphasized the testimony of Plaintiff where he said that the wedding site that Plaintiff and Defendant met on, characterized the defendant as “modern,” “…which flies in the face of everything the plaintiff testified as something that he was seeking. ” (2T87-88).  Plaintiff testified he wanted a “traditional” wife but knew prior to marriage that the Defendant was educated and “modern. ” (1T102-5).  Additionally, the Court recognized how “it is reasonable that someone who felt that they were in a more modern relationship would be trusted to go to D.C. to do a job training, would be trusted to meet up with a friend in Canada to say hello, [and] wouldn’t need to be watched.