ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] In *Small v. Goldman*, 637 F. Supp. 1030, 1033 (D.N.J. 1986), [...], applying state law, held that a plaintiff had an individual cause of action (rather than just a derivative claim) arising out of a conspiracy by directors to compel the sale of the plaintiff’s shares below value – a situation very similar to that alleged by the Plaintiffs here.  The court in *Small* explained that a shareholder may sue for the harm inflicted upon the corporation where there exists “a special relationship between the suing shareholder and the defendant, creating a duty, contractual or otherwise, other than that owed to the corporation. ”  This is because “[t]he directors and officers of a corporation owe a fiduciary duty to not use their positions for their own personal advantage, or for the advantage of others, to the detriment of the interest of the stockholders of the corporation. ”  *Id.*  In reaching his conclusion, [...] also relied on a Seventh Circuit decision, *Borak v. J.I. Case. Co.*, 317 F.2d 838, 842 (7th Cir.1963), which held that “A director of a corporation acts as a fiduciary not only to the corporation but also to the stockholders, and the essence of a cause of action by a stockholder, based upon allegations of fraudulent acts by a director, is not the fraud against the corporation, but the fraud of the director as it affects the stockholders. ”  *See also Joseph Oat Holdings, Inc. v. RCM Digesters, Inc.*, 2009 WL 900758 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2009).  The Plaintiffs’ claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the covenant of good faith are similar to those in *Small* and *Joseph Oat Holdings*, and the trial court rightly concluded that the holdings in those decisions permitting individual claims to proceed due to the existence of a special injury should apply with equal force here.
[brief] See, e.g., Nav-Its, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co., 183 N.J. 110, 118-19 (2005); Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 475, 482 (1961) (holding that “[w]hen members of the public purchase policies of insurance they are entitled to the broad measure of protection”).  Exclusions should be narrowly tailored and should be viewed with great scrutiny.  See, e.g., Merck & Co., supra, 475 N.J. Super. at 434.  Additionally, intrafamily liability exclusions run counter to our State’s laws, which permit interfamily liability claims.  New Jersey has long since abandoned parental and interspousal immunities in tort matters.
[brief] (Appx 535 at ¶57).  Then, on February 26, 2020, Plaintiff texted a [...] Program Director seeking hours.  (Appx 535 at ¶58).  On March 2, 2020, Plaintiff sent a text message to the same Program Director stating, “I am ONLY interested in maintaining the 16 hrs a month, in order for me to uphold my position as a sub/per diem. ” (Appx 535 at ¶59).  On March 29, 2020, she wrote to the same Program Director, stating she could not take hours because “my children are in remote learning and unfortunately I have no one to step up during my absence.  I truly apologies [sic] if this caused any inconvenience[.]” (Appx 535-36 at ¶60).  On May 3, 2020, Defendant received a report that Plaintiff ran into a [...] staff member and a person being served out in public at a [...] and began loudly berating the staff member (including yelling, cursing and blocking them from leaving).
[brief] Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights before the March 12 interrogation but not before the March 6 interrogation.  The court held that defendant’s March 6th statement was admissible in its entirety because defendant was not in custody.  (21T50-23 to 61-17; Da128-130)  For the March 12th statement, the court found that defendant was initially properly advised of his rights and knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived them.  The court further found, however, that defendant invoked his right to silence halfway through the statement which the police failed to scrupulously honor.  Thus, the court ordered that the initial portion of the March 12th statement was admissible in the State’s case-in-chief, but that the portion after defendant invoked his right to counsel was inadmissible.  (Da128-130; 14T86-3 to 108-8)  The State played both the March 6th statement and the first part of the March 12th statement for the jury.
[brief] Such revised lot grade shall not include mounding, terracing, or other devices designed to allow increased building height. ” (PaO61-062)  In this case there is no question that the [...] approved the revised lot grade shown on the site plan that was presented to it by [...].  The [...] submits that its authority was properly exercised pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et.seq., that the revised lot grade was properly applied to measure height and that no height variance was required.  The Plaintiffs contend that the revised lot grade included “mounding, terracing or other devices designed to allow increased building height. ”  (Emphasis Added)  Therefore, they contend that the height should be measured from the original lot grade.  If so, some of the buildings exceed the height limitation by 10% or more which would deprive the [...] of jurisdiction to act on the application and nullify its action.
[brief] This exception shall be narrowly construed to prevent disclosure of information that would be harmful to a bona fide law enforcement purpose or the public safety.  Whenever a law enforcement official determines that it is necessary to withhold information, the official shall issue a brief statement explaining the decision.  N.J.S.A. 47:1A-3b.  See, North Jersey Media Group v. Lyndhurst, supra, at 570-571, which suggests that it is the responsibility of the law enforcement official to respond.  The bottom line is that the failure of the plaintiff to specifically request the “information” under Section 3b is fatal to his lawsuit.  Further, the trial court’s order on [...]’s motion for reconsideration fails to properly analyze the basis for directing the disclosure of the “information”.
[directive] This specification may limit the type of evidence or information that would be relevant to the pretrial detention decision, and thus limit the scope of the detention hearing.  Page 63 7.6  Relevant Facts and Circumstances.  General Rule.  7.6.1  In determining whether to sustain or overcome a presumption established in this Section or Section 8, the prosecutor may consider any fact or circumstance that has a material bearing on the risk that defendant, if released, will not appear in court when required, will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, and/or will obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process, or threaten, injure, or intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror.  The Bail Reform Law provides a list of broad categories of information that a court may take into account in determining whether to order (f).28 pretrial detention.
[brief] See 1T38-2 to 1T38-9.  The Applicant proposed to "set our structures back slightly to just provide a little bit of room for landscaping and to provide a little bit of room for architectural facade elements that sort of provide depth to the property or to the building" (1T38-13 to 1T38-17).  [...] failed to explain how that supposed benefit could not be accomplished via buildings with conforming setbacks.  Indeed, 10-foot setbacks would necessarily provide more room for the landscaping and façade elements than 5-foot setbacks.  [...]'s representation that the proposal "actually increased our setback" (1T39-6) is demonstrably false.  This is a vacant parcel with no building or structure as defined by the Borough.
[brief] Exhibit 2 to [...] Certification - Lease Commencement Letter, dated September 22, 2017 (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at p. Da191)  ……………………………Pa111  Exhibit 3 to [...] Certification - Assignment of Lease, dated February 2019 (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at p. Da193)  ……………………………Pa112  Exhibit 4 to [...] Certification - Default Notices (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at pp. Da194-Da199)  ………………Pa113  Certification of [...], for Plaintiff, in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Fix Amount Due for Tenant Fit-Up Reimbursement and in Further Support of Plaintiff’s Application for Reimbursement of its Attorney’s Fees and Cost, dated January 18, 2022 ………Pa114 Exhibit A to Federer Certification - Summons and Verified Complaint (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at pp. Da88-Da101) ………………Pa122 Exhibit B to Federer Certification - Post-Trial Order of the Honorable [...], dated November 10, 2021 (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at pp. Da1-Da2) ……………………Pa123 Exhibit C to Federer Certification - Counsel’s Certification in Support of Plaintiff’s Application for Reimbursement of its Attorney’s Fees and Cost, dated December 9, 2021 (Reproduced in Defendant’s Appendix at p. Da193) ……………………………Pa124 Exhibit D to Federer Certification - Letter from [...] Esq., for Plaintiff, to Court, dated December 29, 2021, Requesting Disbursement of Escrowed Rent Arrears (Reproduced in herein at pp. Pa236-Pa237) ……………………………………Pa125 Proposed Order ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………Pa126 Certification of Service, dated January 18, 2022 ………………………………………Pa128 Plaintiff’s Letter Request to Disregard Defendant’s Reply Brief, dated February 18, 2022 .................................................................Pa130 Defendant’s Letter Response to Plaintiff’s Letter Request to Disregard Defendant’s Reply Brief, dated February 23, 2022 ..............................................Pa131 Cover Page and Table of Content for Brief on Behalf of Defendant [...] in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Fix Amount Due to Tenant Fit-Up Reimbursement and Other Related Relied and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for Reimbursement of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ........................................................................... Pa133 Respondent’s Notice of Cross Appeal, Appellate Division Civil Case Information Statement and Proof of Service .........................................................Pa135 Unpublished Opinions Opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Alhagaly v. Mega Properties at 100-104 Romaine Avenue, LLC (2021 WL 2944837) ........................................................................................................Pa148 Opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Benjamin H. Realty Corp. v. Young (2023 WL 8596172) .............................................Pa153 Opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in Connell v. Connell (2008 WL 2901855)
[brief] Moreover, [...] has shown good cause for withholding the documents as irrelevant.  And, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C), [...]’s second supplemental response to RFP No. 7 expressly notified [...] what categories of documents it is withholding based on its objection: “documents concerning company-wide furloughs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, sales and/or employee bonus information not related to Plaintiff, reporting information regarding job openings not related to Plaintiff’s position, payroll documents detailing company-wide salaries, [and] documents relating to other employees and customers not in Kansas. ”  (ECF 63-1, at 3.)  The court is therefore unpersuaded by [...]’s “unfairness” argument.  The court also rejects [...]’s request to require [...] to provide a relevancy log for the documents it is withholding.
[brief] (Volume I Pa. 134).  Although the parties took [...]’s deposition on July 21, 2022, the Presiding Civil Judge ruled that use of the deposition was barred because it was taken without the court’s permission.  (Volume I Pa. 134).  The motion courts did not consider the reasons why the discovery was necessary.  The reason why the discovery was necessary were defendants’ failure to comply with [...]’s notice of deposition requiring defendants to produce documents pertinent to the case including documentation regarding [...]’s damage claim (Volume I Pa. 119-122).
[brief] While Petitioner and Amicus Curiae [...] assert that circumstances that justify straying from the language and intent of the legislature in enacting the statute, to do so would erode and serve to nullify its purpose.  As it applies to the patient-physician relationship, exceptions based on specialty or type of claim asserted will serve to negatively impact the safe provision of care to the detriment of patients and, by extension, the public’s safety.  I.
[brief] Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574, 594-95 (App. Div. 2016) (alterations in original).  Failure to do so may result in a remand for a further articulation of the trial court’s reasons for deciding as it did.  [...] maintains that the trial court’s decision was reversible error, and therefore should be reversed in its entirety and remanded for further proceedings.  However, in the event this Court determines it cannot decide this appeal on the statement of reasons read into the record on March 17, 2023 (see generally 1T at 22:4 to 23:18), [...] requests that the Court remand to allow the trial court to submit a more comprehensive statement of reasons.
[brief] However, with regard to presence in an area known for a high level of narcotics or other criminal activity as a factor supporting reasonable and articulable suspicion for a stop, “the State must do more than simply invoke the buzz words ‘high crime area’ in a conclusory manner to justify investigative stops. ”  State v. Goldsmith, 251 N.J. 384 (2022).  "A reviewing court must accept the factual findings of a trial court that are 'supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.'"  State v. Mohammed, 226 N.J. 71, 88 (2016) (quoting State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 424 (2014)).
[brief] THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF THE DETECTIVE’S IMPROPER VIDEO NARRATION TESTIMONY COMPOUNDED BY THE LACK OF PROPER JURY INSTRUCTION DENIED DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.  (Not Raised Below)  Each of the errors cited above is sufficient alone to require a new trial.  If the Court does not concur, it must find that the cumulative effect of these errors requires a new trial.  State v. Orecchio, 16 N.J. 125, 129 (1954); U.S. Const. amends.  V, XIV; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶¶ 1, 9, 10.  This is especially so considering that the identity of the shooter was the key issue in the case; that the State’s evidence as to the shooter’s identity was far from overwhelming; and that all of the above errors improperly bolstered the State’s argument on identity.  POINT IV
[brief] Respectfully submitted, [...], ESQUIRE  [...], ESQUIRE  Attorney’s for the Defendant-Appellant  DATED: March 4, 2024  May 8, 2024  [...]  Assistant Prosecutor  N.J. Attorney ID 410212022  Of Counsel and On the Letter Brief e-mail: [...]  The Honorable Judges of the Superior Court of New Jersey  Appellate Division  Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex  Post Office Box 006 Trenton, New Jersey 08626  Re State of New Jersey (Plaintiff-Respondent) v. [...] (Defendant-Appellant)
[brief] The present matters were filed specifically in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-23, which provides:  2A:23B-23.  Vacating award a.  Upon the filing of a summary action with the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the --- \(^1\)  A review of the various sections within N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-1, et seq. finds multiple sections which provide for judicial intervention and/or review in connection with an arbitration.  These include: - 2A:23B-5.  Application for judicial relief - 2A:23B-6.  Agreement to arbitrate; validity - 2A:23B-18.  Judicial enforcement of preaward ruling - 2A:23B-22.  Confirmation of award - 2A:23B-23.
[brief] *Davidson v. Slater*, 189 N.J. 166, 185 (2007).  Accordingly, Respondent “bears the burden of production in respect to demonstrating that the accident was the proximate cause of the injury, aggravation or new permanent injury to the previously injured body part. ”  *Davidson*, at 185, citing, *O’Brien Cogeneration, Inc. v. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of Am.*, 361 N.J. Super. 264, 274-75 (App. Div. 2003).  A Plaintiff’s failure to produce a comparative medical analysis can be fatal to a Plaintiff’s case.  *Reichert v. Vegholm*, 366 N.J. 209, 213-14, (App. Div. 2004).  Where, as in the present case, a Plaintiff does not raise sufficient comparative medical evidence, Plaintiff faces dismissal.
[brief] N.J.S.A. 2A:23B-6(b).  If those questions are to be answered summarily, like here by way of motion practice, the Court must view all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movants, Plaintiffs.  Kleine v.  Emeritus at Emerson, 445 N.J. Super. 545 548 (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)).  Under that standard of review, [...] have not met their burden for the court to grant summary judgment to compel arbitration and [...] is entitled to further discovery surrounding his execution of the agreement.
[brief] See Correa v. Grossi, 458 N.J. Super. 571, 580 (App. Div. 2019).  Courts are to bear in mind the fundamental purpose of our election laws:  Because the right to vote is the bedrock upon which the entire structure of our system of government rests, our jurisprudence is steadfastly committed to the principle that election laws must be liberally construed to effectuate the overriding public policy in favor of the enfranchisement of voters.  Id. (emphasis added).  Title 19 is therefore designed to “deter fraud, safeguard the secrecy of the ballot[,] and prevent the disenfranchisement of qualified voters.
[brief] Civil Procedure in the 21st Century: Some Proposals (/file/document/civil-procedure-21st-century-some-proposals) (pdf)  Comments on the ACTL/IAALS "Pilot Project Rules" for Civil Litigation" by Certain Members of the [...] (/file/document/comments-actliaals-pilot-project-rules-civil-litigation-certain-members-aba-litigation) (pdf)  Comments on the Proposals for the 2010 Duke Conference Regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (/file/document/comments-proposals-2010-duke-conference-regarding-federal-rules-civil-procedure) (pdf)  Nineteenth Century Rules for Twenty-First Century Courts? - An Analysis and Critique of "A Roadmap for Reform, Pilot Project Rules" (/file/document/nineteenth-century-rules-twenty-first-century-courts-analysis-and-critique-roadmap) (pdf) Proposal to Amend Rule 23 (/file/document/proposal-amend-rule-23) (pdf) Proposals for the 2010 Duke Conference Regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (/file/document/proposals-2010-duke-conference-regarding-federal-rules-civil-procedure) (pdf) Proposed Amendment to Rule 23 (/file/document/proposed-amendment-rule-23) (pdf) Report of the [...] (/file/document/report-new-york-state-bar-associations-special-committee-pleading-standards-federal) (pdf) Reshaping the Rules of Civil Procedure for the 21st Century: The Need for Clear, Concise and Meaningful Amendments to Key Rules of Civil Procedure (/file/document/reshaping-rules-civil-procedure-21st-century-need-clear-concise-and-meaningful)
[directive] Super Surplus represents the remaining unobligated balance after an amount is P reserved for Fund operations in the next fiscal year and is available for the law enforcement activities of any federal agency.  The Fund is not available to reimburse Treasury law enforcement bureaus for an expenses that those bureaus do not have legal authority to pay from appropriation.  Executive Office Asset Fo$eiture 7 for ChauterN Guidelines for Seized and Forfeited Prouertv ~ Payments and Reimbursements from the Fund
[brief] **A.  The Application Fails to Meet the Water Quality Requirements Under the Stormwater Management Rules.  (Aa2521-Aa2537). **  The purpose of the water quality requirements is to filter suspended solids in stormwater before it enters into bodies of water or into the groundwater.  N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.5.  Here, in addition to several other BMPs, [...] is proposing fourteen (14) Filterra manufactured treatment devices (“MTDs”).  (Aa2524).  Filterra MTD works by having stormwater runoff flow into a curb cut and through a soil media with vegetation inside the MTD.  (Aa2524).  The treated runoff is then collected in an underdrain and discharged into the adjacent pipe run.  (Aa2524).  Therefore, the ability of the system to freely drain and maintain aerobic conditions in the soil media is required to the Filterra MTD’s functionality.  (Aa2524).  Documentation from the manufacturer of the Filterra system states that the purpose of the underdrain system “is needed to ensure there’s no standing water in the media for long periods. ” (Aa2524).  A system that is not permitted to freely drain via gravity would quickly develop anaerobic conditions and function as a source of water quality impairment rather than as a treatment device.  (Aa2524).  Chapter 10.4 of the BMP Manuals states that “[u]nder no circumstances should there be any standing water in the forebay 72 hours after a precipitation event. ”  BMP Manual, Chapter 10.4, Page 4.  A review of the plans revealed that the normal water surface elevation (“NWSE”) of the discharge area is 86.50.  (Aa2524; Aa4-Aa45).  The discharge area also serves as a sediment forebay.  (Aa2524).  However, according to the application materials, the sediment forebay is located 10 feet below the groundwater table.  (Aa2524).  As designed, the sediment forebay will always be full of ponded water, in violation of Chapter 10.4 of the BMP Manual.  (Aa2524).  Furthermore, the proposed pipe from the Filterra MTDs runs into the sediment forebay at elevation 79.00.  (Aa2525; Aa4-Aa45).  This is 7.5 feet below the NWSE of 86.5.  (Aa2525; Aa4-Aa45).  The outlet invert elevations for each of the MTDs are between 84.10 and 84.60 (Aa2525; Aa4-Aa45).  This means that 2ft to 2.5ft of the soil media within the Filterra MTDs will constantly be saturated.  (Aa2525).  This is in direct conflict with the manufacturer’s requirements on which the State’s MTD certification is based.  (Aa2525).  The result is that the plants will not survive, the soils will not be able to freely drain, and the system will not be able to treat the runoff for water quality as designed.  The failure of these systems will result in the project failing to demonstrate compliance with the water quality requirements of N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.5.  (Aa2525).  The [...] staff acknowledged the issue with regard to the Filterra MTDs and requested a response from [...].  (Aa2945-Aa2946).  However, a review of the final approved plans shows that this was never addressed or redesigned.  (Aa4-Aa45).  Therefore, the [...]’s issuance of the FHA Permit after acknowledging this deficiency, is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and must be vacated and reversed.
[brief] Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 2.2.1 on R. 4:9-1 (2019) (emphasis added).  It appears that the motion judge believed that the claims against [...] were futile because the lease had effectively been deemed “terminated,” without a judicial declaration and the [...] had every right to lie through their dual dealings with plaintiffs, even circumventing the NDA.  Thus, it appears that the motion judge effectively held that Appellants’ claims against [...] were dependent upon the viability of the land-lease, even though Appellants’ claims involved the fraudulent sale of Appellants’ solar-energy rights that had been acquired in perpetuity from defendant [...].