ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] Ibid.  Questions about the purpose of the rules, the standards adopted and the principles underlying them were more than adequately addressed decades ago in the public comment period before they were adopted.  (Ra108 and 188).  As the Department pointed out in its responses to comments, the Rule is designed to strike the proper balance between the carrier and interests of the policyholders:  The purpose of these rules is to promote the public interest, to promote the availability of long-term care policies, to protect applicants for long-term care insurance from unfair or deceptive sales or enrollment practices, to establish standards for long-term care insurance, to facilitate public understanding and comparison of long-term care insurance policies, and to facilitate flexibility and innovation in the development of long-term care insurance coverage.  [Ra109].  Clearly, the adoption of the rules fulfilled the Department’s obligation to provide guidance to carriers about the rate review process.  2.
[brief] The Court reviewed the representations made by [...] in his Certification.  The Court expressed the concern that the information contained in that Certification would be used against [...] in the subject lawsuit.  The Court stated that it does not need to sit and hope that such a violation will not occur when the potential for a violation is there.  In disqualifying the [...], the Court stated that “concerns of potential disadvantage, when raised by a former client, need to be evaluated and if the Court does – the Court does not need to sit and hope that such violation does not occur when the potential for same seems clear.  (T25:4-9).  The Court relied upon the fact that there exists in every attorney-client relationship, an attorney-client privilege that the client can assert and can only be waived by the client.  (T25:20-T26:8).  The Court expressed the concern that the information contained in the Certification was “intrinsic to the handling of any litigation to which, in this instance, Mr. [...] may be involved.  As such, there is no way to avoid potential disadvantage he might suffer in the pending litigation. ” (T26:15-19).  The Court was satisfied that [...] had demonstrated how the information could be used.  III.
[brief] THE FIVE-YEAR DURATION OF THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED.  A restrictive “covenant should not be enforced beyond the period needed for the employer (or any new associate . . . ) to demonstrate his effectiveness to the patients. ”  Karlin, 77 N.J. at 423.  As a well-established Otolaryngology practice, [...] is positioned to demonstrate its effectiveness immediately.  Restraining a five-year employee for a five-year period, as [...] seeks to do here, is punitive and prevents competition rather than sets the appropriate period of time to enable [...] to demonstrate effectiveness to its patients.
[brief] Plaintiff has presented only self-serving assertions from his own statements and speculation in response to the uncontested materials presented by defendants.  This is not sufficient to survive summary judgment.  Schiavo, 442 N.J. Super. at 368-69; Martin, 346 N.J. Super. at 323; Cortez, 435 N.J. Super. at 605.  The trial court noted that plaintiff could present no evidence contradicting the undisputed record that [...] simply wanted plaintiff to follow the procedures required of all speakers to get approval.  (3T33:10-12).  [...] noted that even with all favorable inferences given to plaintiff, he simply could not demonstrate that he followed [...] policies and procedures such that discipline might be considered pretextual.  (3T37:16-3T38:9).  The court found that [...] provided record evidence of legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for the written warning and one-day suspension.  (3T37:21–3T38:9).  [...] was entitled to judgment on the retaliation claims.  That ruling should be affirmed.
[brief] J. Ct. R. 2:6-1(a)(2) | Pa 108-110 | | Brief in support of Motion to Amend Complaint, For Removal of Improperly Filed Documents; To Correct; Reopen; For Change of Venue and Division; For Disqualification and Relief From Judgment referred to in the decisions of the Trial Court, and is germane to the appeal, in which event all relevant pages of the Brief are attached pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 2:6-1(a)(2) | Pa 111-128 | | March 15, 2023, Oral Argument Request | Pa 129-130 | | March 18, 2023, Oral Argument Request | Pa 131-134 | | March 21, 2023, Letter Regarding USPS Tracking | Pa 135 | | Date | Description | Page | |-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------| | March 20, 2023 | Letter Regarding USPS Tracking | Pa 136 | | March 28, 2023 | Letter Requesting Relief | Pa 137-139 | | May 06, 2023 | Letter Requesting Relief | Pa 140-142 | | [...]
[directive] Receiving Stolen Property (Motor Vehicle Only), 5. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7; N.J.S.A. 2C:20-(b)(2)(b).  The Policy authorizes vehicular pursuits for receiving stolen property (motor vehicle only) until at least December 31, 2022.  I have directed [...] to review the available data as of that date, including stolen vehicle trends, effectiveness of pursuits, and resulting accidents, and determine whether this provision should remain or be modified.  Absent additional action, this provision will remain in force after December 31, 2022.
[brief] Now, the part that will be granted is that to the extent that the order visited these fees on the law firm as well as the client, that was an order that was inartfully drafted as far as I’m concerned.  The law presumes that the lawyer is acting on behalf of the client and with the client’s instructions and acquiescence .  . . .  [I]t’s the --- ⁷ 3T = transcript of February 4, 2022.  ⁸  We presume.  Although the Trial Court did not modify the amount of fees it awarded to [...], its reasoning on reconsideration stated both that “the sanction in this case [is] appropriate and go back to the beginning -- and go back to the beginning of this case;” and that “I imposed half of the fees because I have them the benefit of the doubt quite frankly that maybe they thought there was something that [...] knew and realized that there was an interference that would give them a cause of action until they did at least some discovery. ” (3T 19:25-20:2, 22:9-14).  client’s responsibility to . . . retain the lawyer to pursue the litigation and it’s the lawyer’s responsibility to determine the strategy with I’m sure the consultation with the client and that’s always been the case .  . . .  But the responsibility is on the client, not the lawyer and so the award of fees is . . . as to the plaintiff, not to the plaintiff’s counsel.
[brief] [...] testified that to reopen the divorce, obtain the AFJD, and defend it on appeal, she paid her attorneys a retainer of $53,600 (5T211:3-5) and incurred an additional $396,198.59 in fees and costs (5T209:1-10).  Da425.  The total legal fees incurred in the process to reopen the divorce, $449,798.59 represent plaintiff’s damages and that is how the Appellate Division arrived at $449,798.59 as the amount of damages that was to be awarded in the amended final judgment.  Defendants had the opportunity to attack this evidence during trial but did not do so because there was no basis to attack the fees incurred by plaintiff.  Defendants were not deprived of any due process rights, nor was any “mistake” made in the context of R. 4:50 by the Appellate Division setting the damage award at the amount of fees and costs incurred by plaintiff to correct defendants’ malpractice.
[directive] Assault Cases.  Violence Domestic in Tool Assessment Risk fog a Need  The 4.6.1 (PSA) Assessment Safety resulting Public the and risk-assessment pretrial automated  The likelihood of the predictive as recognized widely are that factors risk certain for account not do has PSA of developer the the such, re-offending.  As of risk offender's violence domestic a of inform tool" to "trailer assessment risk implementing a of utility the evaluating recommended detention) conditions, release complaint-summons, vs. complaint-warrant (e.g., decisions critical the by made recommendations thirty among the addition, In cases.  violence domestic in an was report 2016 June 28, its in Violence Domestic on Committee Hoc Ad Court Supreme assessing for process coordinated system wide, a develop should Jersey "New that endorsement Hoc Ad Court Supreme the of Report See cases."
[brief] ”  (Board’s Br. at 32.)  That belief might be justified if Bargaining Council members were not expressly designated in advance by the Association as part of its negotiating team, or if they did not actively participate in the negotiations process.  Again, based on its detailed review of the stipulated record, and its application of controlling law to that record, the Commission found to the contrary.  On appeal, the Board has not demonstrated that the Commission’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
[brief] *See* N.J. Ct. R. 2:10-5.  Rule 2:10-5 is intended to give the Appellate Division a means to “eliminate unnecessary further litigation. ”  *See* Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 294 (2013).  In *Price v. Himeji, LLC*, the Supreme Court of New Jersey upheld the Appellate Division’s exercise of original jurisdiction as “entirely appropriate. ”  *Id.* at 295.  *Price v. Himeji, LLC* arose in the context of an appeal from a trial court order in a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs challenging a municipal zoning board of adjustment decision to grant variances.  *Id.*  In upholding the Appellate Division’s exercise of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of New Jersey took the opportunity to provide guidance, stating, “an appellate court not only must weigh considerations of efficiency and the public interest that militate in favor of bringing a dispute to a conclusion, but also must evaluate whether the record is adequate to permit the court to conduct its review. ”  *Id.*  Resort to original jurisdiction is particularly appropriate to avoid unnecessary further litigation where the record is adequate and no further fact-finding, administrative expertise or discretion is involved.  *Id.* at 294.  Likewise, resort to original jurisdiction is particularly appropriate where the standard and scope of review are identical to the standard and scope of review employed by the decision-maker into whose place the Appellate Division would step.  *Id.* at 295.  No useful purpose is served by remanding a land use matter to the lower courts for a review of a record that would be subject to review by the Appellate Division.  See *id.* at 294 (quoting *Bressman v. Gash*, supra, 131 N.J. 517, 528-529 (1993)).  As is amply discussed in Section III, supra, in the context of a land use dispute, the role of the court is to evaluate whether the Zoning Board’s decision ‘is founded on adequate evidence.
[brief] It is uncontested that both left lanes were not closed at the time of [...]’s illegal U-turn.  Da065 (103:18-24).  Therefore, Defendant [...] violated the rule set forth in the [...]’ directive when he used the police turnaround at the time of the July 20, 2022 crash.  See Da179.  [...]’s first day working on the subject Earle GSP project was the day prior to the crash, July 19, 2022.
[brief] (16a)  The order explained:  Temporary restraints will remain in place until adjudication of Plaintiffs application for ejectment and removal, Defendants’ counterclaim in opposition, and Defendants’ application for removal of Plaintiff in addition to other injunctive relief, all currently scheduled for a hearing by this Court on June 8, 2022, at which time the Court hear argument on the merits of the underlying action and will thereafter enter an Order directing the parties on how they may proceed with the sale or transfer of the Property.  (16a)  On June 8, 2022, [...] conducted the hearing.
[brief] Pursuant to N.J.R.E. 202(b) and N.J.R.E. 201(b)(3), this Court should take judicial notice of this Brief.  Environmental Appellants can supply this Brief to the Court upon request.  construction of Highlands Act.  Instead, this Court must rule in favor of Environmental Appellants interpretation of Exemption #11, which conforms to the well settled legal principle to strictly construe any exemption from a comprehensive legislative policy designed to protect environmental interests.
[directive] Directive No. 33 June 7 , 1999 of Page 7  4  Requesting Payment of a Vehicle Lien from the Net D.  Proceeds of Sale  Once a forfeited vehicle is sold, the seizing agency must forward to [...] with its cover memorandum a copy of the validated, accomplished disposition form, which states the gross sales proceeds, a statement indicating the appraised value at the time of seizure, and any other required information and documentation specified on the Lien Payment Checklist.
[brief] That section states, “in particular cases, for special reasons, ‘a variance to allow the departure from regulations may be granted to permit: (5) in increase in the permitted density as defined in §3.1 of P.L. 1975, c. 291 (c.40:55d-4) except as applied to the required lot area for a lot or lots or detached one or two family unit dwellings, which lot or lots are either an isolated undersized lot or lots resulting from a minor subdivision or (6) a height of a principle structure that exceeds by 10 feet or 10% of the maximum height permitted in the district for a principle structure.
[directive] Iniciales del acusado/Defendant’s Initials Formulario principal de declaración/Formulario enmendado promulgado por la directriz #01-18 (02/23/2018), CN 10079-Spanish página 3 de 7 Main Plea Form/Revised Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18 (02/23/2018), CN 10079-Spanish page 3 of 7 que requiera 7.  ¿Presentó usted una declaración de culpabilidad a algún cargo un período obligatorio [Sí/Yes]  [No/No] sin posibilidades de libertad condicional o un término obligatorio prolongado?  that require  Did you enter a plea of guilty to any charges a mandatory period of parole ineligibility or a mandatory extended term?  a.  Si usted se declara culpable de tal cargo, el período mínimo obligatorio sin posibilidades de libertad condicional es años y meses (llene la cantidad de años/meses) y el período máximo sin posibilidades de libertad condicional podrá ser de años y meses (llene la cantidad de años/meses) y dicho período no se podrá reducir por créditos por buen comportamiento, trabajo o custodia mínima.  If you are pleading guilty to such a charge, the minimum mandatory period of parole ineligibility is years and months (fill in the number of years/months) and the maximum period of parole ineligibility can be years and months (fill in the number of years/months) and this period cannot be reduced by good time, work, or minimum custody credits.  b.  Si usted se declara culpable de tal cargo, el término obligatorio prolongado mínimo es años y meses (llene la cantidad de años/meses), y el término obligatorio prolongado máximo puede ser años y meses (llene la cantidad de años/meses).  If you are pleading guilty to such a charge, the minimum mandatory extended term is years and months (fill in the number of years/months) and the maximum mandatory extended term can be years and months (fill in the number of years/months).  8.  ¿Se declara usted culpable de un delito que conlleva la presunción de encarcelamiento, lo cual [Sí/Yes] [No/No] quiere decir que es casi seguro que usted irá a una prisión del estado?
[brief] We've been here for 11 months, 308 days.  I didn't count hours, but quite a long time.  Both listening to the testimony of our experts and professionals and comments and questions from the public and comments and questions from the Board so I appreciate that.  Since the commencement of this public hearing, in February, you've heard testimony from [...], clearly indicating the absolute need for this regulator station, at this site, in order to ensure continued safe and reliable natural gas service to Holmdel residents.  Providing safe and reliable [...] mandates, as a public utility, under Federal and State law.  But it is more to them. protect the facility from vehicles coming into contact with it.  You've also heard testimony from [...] noise expert, [...].  Not only will the station comply with both state and local noise regulations, it also will have no impact upon existing noise levels at the surrounding properties with the installation of a sound wall.  You've also heard testimony from [...] Director of Transmission Pressure Measurement, [...], that this station will be very secure and monitored on a 24/7 basis and that it, like every other station at [...]'s system, will be very safe.  Finally, you've heard the testimony from [...]'s expert planner, [...], and in his testimony he states his station is an inherently-beneficial use.  He testified that the application meets the proofs required for the variances and waivers that we seek.  [...] would like to remind the Board that this use is indeed a permitted public utility use in the OL-2 zone, where the property is located.  So there already has been a municipal determination that this use, this public utility use is both appropriate for the property and for the zone, but because we require an additional principal use on the site, we are here for a use Holmdel township [...] 12-16_1.txt primary purpose of ensuring that Holmdel residents continue to receive safe and reliable natural gas service to heat their homes.
[brief] A.  Plaintiff claimed that [...] caused stormwater runoff by extending their driveway and sloping it towards plaintiff’s property.  Plaintiff alleged in part that [...] had extended their driveway and sloped it toward plaintiff’s property, causing “significant water runoff” onto plaintiff’s property.  Pa44, ¶ 21; Pa330, ¶ 21; accord Pa90-91, ¶¶ 10-12.  Plaintiff claimed that [...] had “extended the driveway beyond their house and sloped it toward [plaintiff’s] Property. ”  Pa44, ¶ 22; Pa330, ¶ 22; accord Pa91, ¶ 10.  He asserted that those improvements “were directing large amounts of water onto [plaintiff’s backyard], thereby destroying extensive and costly landscaping which included, without limitation, an oriental garden and specimen trees. ”  Pa44-5, ¶ 23; Pa330, ¶ 23; accord Pa90-91, ¶ 9, ¶¶ 11-12.  B.
[brief] State’s reference on summation to defense expert witness [...].  On summation, the AP contrasted the roles of defense expert witness [...] with the State’s expert witness [...]:  Another difference is their evaluations is one of bias and objectivity.  [...] testified that he had no prior relationship with the defendant, no prior interest in any of this.  And he told you he doesn’t give anybody a sneak peek.  He doesn’t say, well, you know, tell me the story and I’ll tell you where I think I’m going to go.  No.  Once he gets the work in, once he does his homework, then he’ll tell you what the answer is according to him.  It wasn’t the same for [...].  [...] had a clinical relationship with [defendant].  And then a forensic relationship with [defendant].  And not just a word, you know, not just a form of words.  You heard the testimony from both doctors, in a clinical setting the doctor is not supposed to question things.  Right, just accept them as they come.  And not push back and not question or probe.  But that’s not what a forensic interview is, where you’re actually supposed to do that.
[brief] *Ibid.*  New Jersey courts subsequently used these Supreme Court cases as the foundation for its own automobile-exception law.  See *State v. LaPorte*, 62 N.J. 312, 316 (1973) (holding police properly seized and searched defendant’s vehicle because it was reportedly involved in prior robbery and they had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of said crime).  In the seminal pair of decisions on the automobile exception, *State v. Alston*, 88 N.J. 211, 230– 31 (1981), and *State v. Martin*, 87 N.J. 561, 563 (1981), the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed the legal principle that unforeseeability and spontaneity requirement did not demand that police officers seek a warrant simply because they had used their training and experience to anticipate the evidence that would be found in the vehicle.
[brief] (14T 66-10 to 13; 14T 82-1 to 21; 14T 88-1 to 8; 14T 92-23 to 94-20)  However, on cross-examination, [...] admitted that of all the shells and projectiles that he tested, he only took photos of two to demonstrate the alleged ballistic matches.  (14T 104-13 to 23)  [...] testified that he downloaded surveillance video from the time of the shooting from both the [...] and from [...], next door to D & A on Stuyvesant.
[brief] The purpose of the Water Quality Planning Act and its requirement that all permits be consistent with the Areawide WQM Plans is to ensure that these big picture, county-level impacts are not missed at the permitting stage.  This safeguard is particularly important since the 2015 amendments shifted this analysis from the planning stage entirely to the permitting stage.  Yet, in the instant permit decision, the [...] created no record and made no findings that it even considered whether the Mercer County WQM plan has any additional requirements, or if a wasteload allocation in an adopted TMDL has been established in any of the impacted waterbodies.  Because the agency either did not consider the critical water quality aspects of the Consistency Assessment, in violation of the legislative intent of the WQPA, or created no record of this matter, vacatur and remand to the agency is appropriate. \textsuperscript{19}  \textit{In re N.J. Pinelands Com’n Resolution}, 356 N.J. Super. At 372 (an action that violates express legislative policies is reversible error); \textit{In re Proposed Constr. of Compressor Station (CS327)}, 2023 N.J. Super. LEXIS at *3 (vacatur and remand is appropriate where [...] left no record that it considered the issue).  \textsuperscript{18}  The [...] has not made a complete record as to which waterways will be impacted by stormwater flowing off of the site, by which the public and this court could determine whether there are any applicable TMDLs.  \textsuperscript{19}  Nor does it appear that this was considered anywhere else in the [...]’s technical permitting review, including in its analysis of the project’s compliance with the Stormwater Manage Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8.  Aa004.  III.
[brief] Indeed, a just accommodation of individual justice and public policy requires that in each case the equitable claims of the opposing parties must be identified, evaluated and weighed.  *Lopez*, supra, at 274.  Whenever dismissal would not further the Legislature's objective in prescribing the limitation in light of the equities involved, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to assert his or her claim.  *Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc.*, 82 N.J. 188, 193 (1980); *Kaczmarek*, supra, 77 N.J. at 338.
[brief] Contrary to Respondent’s assertion (Db7), Appellant disputes the evaluation by Respondent’s Professional Planning Services Report prepared by [...], PP of [...] dated March 9, 2023¹.  Pa124.  Respondent’s planner opined that he also ignored the R-2 zoning, instead using a non-existent “negotiated zoning” ¹ Appellant omitted any reference to the [...] Report due to the page limit set forth in R. 2:8-1. to provide a flawed foundation for Respondent’s appraisal report.  At no point did [...] address Respondent’s need for multiple variances for the proposed Highest and Best Use of the Property.