ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] A court will grant injunctive relief where the moving party demonstrates: (1) a reasonable probability of success on the merits based on well-settled law, (2) that a balance of hardships and equities favors injunctive relief, (3) that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, and (4) that the public interest will not be harmed.  *Waste Mgmt. of New Jersey v. Union Cty. Util. Auth.*, 399 N.J. Super. 508, 519-20 (App. Div. 2008) (*citing Crowe V. DeGioia*, 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 (1982)).  The movant must demonstrate each factor by clear and convincing evidence.  *Garden State Equality v. Dow*, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013) (*citing Brown v. City of Paterson*, 424 N.J. Super 176, 183 (App. Div. 2012).  As set forth in detail above, Appellants have no reasonable probability of success on the merits because Appellants’ damages, if any, are the direct and proximate result of the Appellants’ failure to make the payment(s) due on the Lease.  Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed this claim.
[brief] Plaintiff’s argument then contradicts itself: on one hand, arguing that Defendants did “virtually nothing” in furtherance of the PSA (Pb2), then in arguing that Defendants, and their professionals, worked with the State of New Jersey (allegedly “surreptitiously”) to complete an RIR.  Pb41.  As Defendants had an obligation to secure an RIR, it is perplexing that Defendants are being accused of “concealing” their communications with the DEP.  Pb41.  Notice of the RIR submission was provided to Plaintiff on December 30, 2021.  Da39.  As the self-touted “sophisticated developer” [...] claims to be, he should have known that Defendants would be working toward same.
[brief] This Court should respectfully reverse the lower court’s grant of dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint with prejudice and remand the matter back to the lower court for further proceedings.  LAW  OFFICE OF ERIC J. WARNER, LLC  Attorney for Plaintiffs  By: ________________________________  [...]  Dated: February 2, 2024  [...], individually and as Administrator of the Estate of [...], & [...] , Plaintiff-Appellant(s), v. [...]; [...]; [...]; JOHN DOES (1-10); ABC COMPANIES (1-10); XYZ GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES (1-10) , Defendant-Respondent(s).
[brief] Nothing in the NJCFLA suggests that the legislature intended the Act’s remedies to be unavailable to private citizens.  To suddenly read private mechanisms of enforcement out of the NJCFLA would be tantamount to legislation by the judiciary.  Interpreting the NJCFLA as the legislature clearly intended requires viewing the NJCFLA in its historical context, *i.e.*, acknowledging that the statute has always afforded private enforcement.  Thus, the premise upon which the trial court based its granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is inconsistent with relevant authority and principles of statutory construction.  **ii.
[brief] 6  Other Final Rule, Head Impact Protection, 60 Fed. Reg. 43031, 43032, 43048-43049 (August 18, 1995)..............................................................................................................................  5  Final Rule, Electronic Stability Control, 72 Fed. Reg. 17236 (April 6, 2007)  .....................  5  Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, §2, comment g........................................
[brief] B.  The Trial Court Relied on Far More Than Just [...]’s Testimony In Reaching Its Decision.  Appellants attack the trial court for relying on what they characterize as [...]’s net opinion testimony, particularly as to whether certain transactions were authorized.  (Db55-62).  Those statements are neither accurate nor properly framed: in crediting [...]’s testimony about certain transactions, the trial court weighed the evidence, including the accounting records that buttressed [...]’s assertions and the defense’s response, which the trial court did not find credible.
[brief] \(^2\)  The Covid-19 Pandemic was the reason for the inordinate delay between the second and third hearing dates.  Eight joint exhibits were admitted into evidence.  (Pa1-Pa26; Pa119-Pa137).  [...] also moved into evidence four exhibits.  (Pa138-Pa159).  Respondent moved into evidence six exhibits.  (Pa160-Pa186).  [...] testified.  (1T).  [...]’s expert, [...] (“[...]”), testified.  (2T).  Respondent’s expert, [...] (“[...]”), also testified.  (3T).  [...] submitted his written closing on February 8, 2021.  (Pa27-Pa50).  Respondent submitted its written closing on March 10, 2021.  (Pa51-Pa75).  [...] issued his ID on June 29, 2023.  (Pa76-Pa94).  [...] ruled in favor of [...] by rejecting both reasons of Respondent for denying his ADR and recommending that Respondent award [...] an ADR.  (Pa76-Pa94).  Respondent filed exceptions to the ID on July 27, 2023.  (Pa95-Pa101).  On July 30, 2023, [...] replied to those exceptions.  (Pa102-Pa108).  Respondent issued its preliminary FAD on August 18, 2023 (Pa110).  Respondent issued its final FAD on September 19, 2023.  (Pa111-Pa113).  It should be noted that in its final FAD Respondent only rejected [...]’s conclusion that [...]’s ADR claim was “not the result of a pre-existing disease alone or a pre-existing disease that was aggravated or accelerated by the work effort. ” (Pa111-Pa113).  Respondent did not disturb [...]’s conclusion that --- 3 Respondent’s written closing was misdated 2020.  [...]’s “reported disability was the result of a traumatic event, caused by a circumstance external to the member. ” (Compare Pa111-Pa113 with Pa76-Pa94).  [...] filed a timely Notice of Appeal of the preliminary and final FAD.  (Pa114-Pa118).  This appeal now follows.
[brief] citing Am. Arb. Ass’n, *Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures* 28 (2013) (Rule 47), https://perma.cc/4Y74-WZM8.  It further cited a New Jersey intermediate appellate court, in a decision compelling arbitration of a statutory claim with treble damages, where it noted that they “can be vindicated in the arbitration forum[.]”  *Gras v. Assocs. First Cap. Corp.*, 786 A.2d 886, 892 (N.J. App. Div. 2001), *certif. denied*, 794 A.2d 184 (N.J.  The Court rejected [...]’s last argument that New Jersey itself could join private NJIFPA actions to collect penalties, IFPA §7(d), and suggested this would be impossible in arbitration.  The Court rejected this claim, indicating that [...] failed to explain why New Jersey couldn’t join an arbitration, and pointed out that the IFPA allows the State to file independent actions.
[brief] The transcript misidentifies the name of the [...] counsel as “[...]” during this portion of the argument when it was clearly [...] speaking who represented the [...] at the motion argument.  See T49:17, 49:22-50:1; T6:12-14 (appearance of counsel for the [...]).  [...] represents a different defendant, [...]. to again give their informed consent to joint representation, including with regard to the CNA’s applicability to IFPA claims.  SDa47-49.  So, [...]’s argument that the certifications do not specifically mention that “the pending IFPA claims are subject to the CNA” and the implication of joint liability is irrelevant as to the [...].  Pb31.  On this waiver basis too, the [...] is not disqualified.  The Court should affirm.
[brief] It construed the relevant statutory text\(^{11}\) as requiring (1) “sufficient proof that [the areas] suffer from one or more specified conditions; and (2) “sufficient proof that, as a result…the areas ‘are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community. ”  Id. at 311  The Court found that, notwithstanding the presumption of validity that attaches to municipal action, judicial deference “does not mean that a court is a rubber stamp. ”  A searching review of the record is still required to assess whether there is “substantial evidence” to support the redevelopment designation.
[brief] 5T: October 19, 2022 (trial)  6T: October 20, 2022 (trial)  7T: October 21, 2022 (trial)  8T: October 24, 2022 (trial)  9T: October 26, 2022 (trial)  10T: October 27, 2022 (trial)  11T: October 28, 2022 (trial)  12T: November 1, 2022 (trial)  13T: November 2, 2022 (trial)  14T: February 17, 2023 (sentencing) before [...] left.  4T 102:19-103:14.  The victim contacted him several times in the early morning hours, around 3:30am or possibly 5:30am or 6:30am.  4T 103:17-104:2.  [...] blocked her number from his phone and stopped answering the calls.  4T 103:13-104:14.  The victim called [...] once or twice and sent about ten text messages to him during the night and early morning hours.  4T 105:10-24.  The following morning, upon awakening, [...] checked his cell phone and noted that the victim had informed him that her phone was dying.  4T 104:21-105:9.  He returned to the victim’s motel room, for which he had a key, but did not locate her and it seemed to him that she had not returned to the room since he had seen her the day before.  4T 106:8-21; 109:7-8.  Despite calling around to the victim’s friends and family, [...] was unable to reach anyone who had knowledge of the victim’s whereabouts.  One individual whom he contacted was the defendant, who advised him that the victim had left with three men, who he did not identify.  4T 108:5-12.  Worried and hearing that a body was found in [...], [...] called the police department and asked if the body was the victim’s.  4T 109:21-110:12.  Officers arrived to meet [...] shortly after.  The victim had been found by local citizens, who were driving trucks for a blueberry farm, between 9:00am and 10:00am on [...] and officers arrived to survey the scene at 10:00am.  5T 153:10-11.  [...]’s body was nude, in a fetal position on her back and tangled in briars and vegetation several feet off the side of the road.  5T 154:16-23.  The defendant was investigated and officers viewed his home.  They did not find trace evidence at the defendant’s home but did locate large bins, a large freezer, and a carpet cleaning machine that he had rented the same day on which the victim’s body was found.  7T 208:2-209:4; Db11.  The investigation ended in 2014 but was reopened in 2019 with a discovery from the defendant’s cell phone—saved audio directions beginning near the location where the victim’s body was dumped (near [...]) and ending near the defendant’s apartment.
[brief] *Id.* at 167.  Instead, to prevail on a claim of nuisance, the claimant must prove that “‘the offending landowner somehow has made a negligent or unreasonable use of his land when compared with the rights of the party injured on the adjoining lands. ’”  *Ross v. Lowitz*, 222 N.J. 494, 511 (2015) (quoting *Burke v. Briggs*, 239 N.J. Super. 269, 274 (App. Div. 1990)).  Equally important, the claimant must show that the harm alleged was a foreseeable result of the landowner’s purportedly-unreasonable use of that land.  *Posey v. Bordentown Sewerage Auth.*, 171 N.J. 172, 188 (2002).  In sum, adjudicating a claim of nuisance “‘requires the recognition of the reciprocal rights of each owner to reasonable use, and a balancing of the conflicting interests. ’”  *Burke*, 239 N.J. Super. at 274 (quoting *Sans v. Ramsey Golf & Country Club, Inc.*, 38 N.J. 438, 449 (1959)).  Here, plaintiff failed to show that the [...] made an unreasonable use of their land or foreseeably injured plaintiff by repaving their driveway and replacing the railroad ties that lined their driveway with Belgian block.
[brief] Disc of Video Recordings Marked as Exhibits P-4, P-5, and P-6 at Trial and Admitted into Evidence on June 15, 2023………………………………Pa157  Verdict Sheet……………………………………………………………………Pa158  The Unpublished Opinion Oppedisano v. Utz, 2012 WL 2360125 (App. Div. 2012)……………………………………………………………………Pa160  The Unpublished Opinion Lintao v. Livingston, 2011 WL 2935052 (App. Div. 2011)……………………………………………………………………Pa168
[directive] Multi- jurisdictional police and law enforcement agencies such as: the Division of State Police; other State law enforcement agencies (State Park Rangers, Fish & Game Wardens); County Police and County Park Police Departments or Sheriff Departments; and bi-state agencies, such as Port Authority Police Departments, will need to obtain the official version of the form from the Judiciary Internet web site (www.njcourtsonline. com or www.judiciary.state.nj.us) and then arrange for reproduction of the forms for use by those agencies.  In addition to the standardized form, this Division has prepared a Written Notice of Possible Impoundment, which must be given to the operator of the motor vehicle, when that person has been charged with failing to possess and exhibit proof of insurance, a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-29.  That Written Notice of Possible Impoundment, informs the operator of the motor vehicle that he or she must comply with the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:3-29.1a, within 24 hours, or that vehicle may be subject to impoundment.  A copy of the Written Notice of Possible Impoundment is appended to this memorandum and is also available on the Division of Criminal Justice Internet web site (www.njdcj.org or www.njdcj.com).  Law enforcement officers must fully and completely familiarize themselves with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:3-29, as amended, and the provisions of the newly enacted statute, N.J.S.A. 39:3-29.1a, before applying to a court for a Warrant of Impoundment of any vehicle under these laws.  The full text of each statute is appended to this memorandum.  SUB JECT: Guidelines: Implementation Insurance Fraud Laws Page 3
[brief] There has been no miscarriage of justice here.  The evidence supports the jury verdict on liability and should not be disturbed.  Judge [...]’s rulings on the admission of the criminal convictions and the diagram contained in the police report did not constitute a “clear error in judgment” and should be upheld.  Respectfully submitted, [...], Esquire  Dated: July 16, 2024  [...], INDIVIDUALLY, and on behalf of her minor daughter, [...], Plaintiff-Respondent, v. [...], [...], [...], Defendants-Appellants, and [...], [...], JOHN DOES, MARY DOES, ABC PARTNERSHIPS AND XYZ COPORATIONS, jointly, severally and in the alternative, Defendants-Respondents.
[brief] A trial court's legal conclusions, however, and its view of "the consequences that flow from established facts," are reviewed de novo.  State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015).  The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution protect against “unreasonable searches and seizures. ”  U.S. Const. amend. IV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 7.  A search triggering constitutional scrutiny occurs when government agents intrude into an area where an individual has “a reasonable’ expectation of privacy[.]”  See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan J., concurring)); see also State v. Hinton, 216 N.J. 211, 229 (2013).  Under both constitutions, "searches and seizures conducted without warrants issued upon probable cause are presumptively unreasonable and therefore invalid."  State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384, 398 (2022) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 246 …(2007)).
[directive] If you are approached by anyone soliciting information concerning the proceedings before you as Grand Jurors, you are to report such attempts at once to the court.  Likewise, if during your service anyone should attempt to influence you in the performance of your duties, it would be a violation of the law on the part of that person.  Bring any such conduct to the attention of the clerk of the Grand Jury immediately, so that those making such an attempt may be dealt with properly.
[brief] Finally, although the Trial Court chose not to rule on [...]’s Statute of Limitations argument, all of [...]’s claims against [...] are barred under the Statute of Limitations.  [...] knew – or should have known – about the 3.0 GPA requirement by September 22, 2012 at the very latest.  Yet he did not file suit until March 19, 2019 – approximately six months after the expiration of the six-year statute of limitations.
[directive] Completion Form B For of Report 8  2  A. General  The report shall be mailed to: [...] - - 4  4  [...] [...] a  Any additional pages attached to the report shall include reference the to (u, particular part the Form B report, -Additional distributions of non- of 10 currency property).  The report shall include the name of the County Prosecutor's Office, the full "ORI" beginning and ending dates of the reporting period, and number its the assigned Division of State Police access the National Crime for to by information Center,  The report shall indicate the quarter, by circling (NCIC).
[brief] The relevant issue – whether Plaintiff knew of the facts underlying its claims before the conclusion of the First Action – was not “actually litigated” in the First Action.  That issue was raised in the First Action, for the first and only time, in connection with a post-judgment motion for leave to amend – a motion that was denied by on purely procedural grounds.  (Pa154.)  Defendants nevertheless argue, in one fleeting sentence, that the element of collateral estoppel is satisfied  Rather than meaningfully address this issue in opposition, Defendants claim (in one fleeting sentence) that the element is satisfied because Plaintiff “unsuccessfully litigated the same bad faith claim in the” First Action.  (DB35.)  Not only is that statement factually inaccurate – as Plaintiff was denied leave, on procedural grounds, to even file its bad faith claim in the First Action – but it misconstrues the actual issue.  The pivotal issue is not whether Plaintiff’s bad faith claim was actually litigated (which it was not), but rather whether the issue of whether Plaintiff learned of its claim prior to the completion of the First Action was actually litigated.
[brief] As of the trial date, this matter was **603** days old—*i.e.*, one year and 238 days.  The defense filed a discovery motion as of September 6, 2022, when the matter was adjourned for the State to respond.  The case was ready for trial as of October 18, 2022, when the discovery motion was resolved, and the case was **314** days old.  But the municipal court elected to have one more virtual court appearance on December 6, 2022, just shy of the case’s first anniversary.  No unreasonable delay can be attributed to [...].
[brief] (IT; 12a-27a)  ................ .............................................  1 CONCLUSION  ................................................................. ...........6  Supplemental Appended Item Court’s opinion in Ehler v. Belleville Police Dept., 2007 WL 2162526 (App. Div. 2007).  ................................................................. ..........  976a  #  Table of Authorities  ## Cases  **City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik,** 485 U.S. 112 (1988) ...........................................  4 **Ehler v. Belleville Police Dept.,** 2007 WL 2162526 (App. Div. 2007) ......................... 4,5 **Grandstaff v. City of Borger,** 767 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1985) ..................................  4  **Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital,** 158 N.J. 404 (1999) ............................................. 1,2,3  **Monell v. Dept. of Social Services,** 436 U.S. 658 (1978) .............................................  4  ## Statutes **N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq.** ........................................  4  **N.J.S.A. 34:19-3. ** ..............................................  1-2  42 U.S.C. §1983 ....................................................  4  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT  Plaintiff-Appellant [...] (“Plaintiff”) submits this Reply Brief in response to the Brief filed by Defendants-Respondents [...] and the individual members of the [...] (“Defendants”).
[brief] In Count 1 of the Complaint, Complainants allege that Respondent's January 12, 2022 post on Respondent's personal Facebook post encouraging teachers to "'OPT OUT OF [...]' . . .could be reasonably be seen as compromising the Board and as speaking for the Board as a member of the public."  Ca199-Ca200.  They further allege that Respondent "held herself out as a member of the Board on her Facebook page.  Ca200.  In Count 2 of the Complaint, Complainants allege that Respondent's January 7, 2022 Facebook post showing pictures of herself being sworn as member of the Board along with her family not wearing face masks "could be reasonably be seen as compromising the Board and as speaking for the Board as a member of the public."  Ca200.  They further allege that Respondent "held herself out as a member of the Board on her Facebook page.
[brief] ”  State v. Rivera, 249 N.J. 285, 299 (2021).  The State only notes that the trial court’s rejection of mitigating factor eight (conduct not likely to recur) was appropriately based on the entirety of defendant’s conduct, rather than focusing only on certain counts underlying a Yarbough\(^5\) analysis, so defendant’s complaint about consecutive sentencing does not extend to the trial judge’s rejection of mitigating factor eight.
[brief] [...] conceded that from the first time he interviewed [...] was almost a year after [...] was served with the initial IA target notice.  (11T168:12).  [...] advised [...] he was under investigation for a property check issue on December 11, 2017.  (11T170:8,10).  [...] was in charge of IA at that time.  (11T173:19).  [...] reported to then-Chief of Police [...] ("[...]") who advised him to conduct an IA investigation.
[brief] [Ibid. (quoting Bankston, 63 N.J. at 271, 307 A.2d 65). ]  The Court further explained, [The officer] did not imply that the woman gave police any information at all.  He referenced the anonymous woman twice: once on direct examination and again on redirect examination.  In the first instance, he agreed with the prosecutor that she “didn't want to get involved,” and in the second, he agreed that she “didn't want to give a statement. ”  [The officer] also explained that he obtained formal statements only from [the victim and his friend [...]] because “there was nobody else that wanted to come forward ... to give a statement, any witnesses or anything like that. ”  *10  ....  [Further]  [t]he record substantiates the Attorney General's contention that the jury likely considered the anonymous woman to be a “dead-end witness. ”  The State not only was careful not to repeat what she told police, but also went to great lengths to suggest that she was not forthcoming.  Additionally, the references to the anonymous woman would have seemed less significant than the other relevant evidence in the record.  Both [the victim and his friend] gave descriptions of the attacker that matched defendant's picture; the surveillance video captured the incident; and [the victim] unwaveringly identified defendant both at trial and in the array.
[brief] ”  Ibid.  Courts should consider the time and place of each . . . violation; whether the proof submitted as to one count . . . would be . . . necessary . . . to a conviction under [the other] count; whether one act was . . . part of a larger scheme . . . ; the intent of the accused; and the consequences of the criminal standards transgressed.  [Tate, 216 N.J. at 311 (quoting Davis, 68 N.J. at 81) (alterations in original). ]  Under any merger analysis, the convictions for simple possession must merge with the convictions for possession with intent to distribute of each respective drug type.