ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[brief] A voidance of the transfer is primary.  *N.J.S.A.* 25:2-29(a)(1).  The statute also contains a catch-all provision, affording a creditor "[a]ny other relief the circumstances may require."  N.J.S.A. 25:2-29(a)(3)(c).  In enacting the UFTA, the Legislature specifically opted not to preclude related causes of action.  N.J.S.A. 25:2-32 states, "Unless displaced by the provisions of this article, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement its provisions."
[directive] A: Name Date Submitted I  Current Address: Street City State Zip Code Telephone Email if  The following criteria must be met in order phase up: (check box task is completed) to of I have been in Phase 5 for a minimum 90 days.  Date entered phase 5: of of I have a minimum one consecutive year sobriety.  Sobriety date: I successfully completed treatment.  When and where: I have been in Drug Court for at least 2 years. of I am following the conditions supervision.  Probation Officer verification signature: I am engaged in recovery support groups.  Home group: I am engaged in pro-social activities.  Activities: I am employed or going to school.  Where:  I have presented relapse prevention plan to treatment court team.  in Three accomplishments  Phase 5: if Three community resources I can reach out to I need additional support:  Three coping responses I can utilize:  Client Signature Date A: Track Application for Graduation by Promulgated Directive #20-21 (08/11/2021), CN 12571f ., Jersey Coons  New New Jersey Judiciary  •••·•j(ewrt~.,,T Office of Probation Services  Drug Court - Drug Court Application for Graduation  l~n<e •lntt9.rl~ F1lrnen •QualltyStrvke
[directive] b.  The Revised Attorney General Guidelines shall provide a single and comprehensive source of guidance for all law enforcement agencies operating under the laws of the State of New Jersey concerning: (1) the nondiscrimination policy established in Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2005-1 and this Directive, and (2) the special rules governing intelligence collection, handling and sharing activities that may implicate any person’s constitutional rights, described more fully in Section 3 of this Directive.
[brief] Defs.’ Br. 14-16.  Defendant further argues that “Appellant’s attempts to argue that the Cardholder Agreement is unenforceable are misplaced because such attempts may only be made before an arbitrator. ”  Defs.’ Br. 17.  However, the United States Supreme Court has recently addressed the severability principle in the context of delegation clauses and held that when a challenge applies equally to an entire contract, inclusive of the delegation clause and arbitration provision, the court, not the arbitrator, must address said challenge.
[brief] ”  *The Sedona Principles*, 19 Sedona Conf. J. at 118.  “Those discovery obligations also include the duty to use reasonable efforts to locate and produce ESI responsive to the opposing party’s requests and within the scope of discovery. ”  *Id.* at 119.  The reason for this is straightforward:  Because of the dynamic nature of litigation, the analysis cannot be reduced to a generalized checklist of reasonable steps for every party to take in every action.  Instead, the responding party must make decisions on what is required to meet its preservation and production obligations based on direct input from those inside the organization who create, receive, and store their own information (i.e., individual custodians), and those who implement and maintain the organization’s information systems (e.g., applications administrators).  Rarely will a court or opposing party have direct access to the specific knowledge required to make those decisions.  Moreover, some of these decisions, especially those relating to preservation, often must be made before a responding party can confer with the opposing party or seek court guidance.  Thus, a responding party, not the court or requesting party, is generally best situated to determine and --- 7
[brief] Any evidence [...] was more likely with his phone in Mays Landing lent crucial support to his alibi defense.  More importantly, a central premise of the State’s argument was that incoming calls could be answered by anyone, since no passcode was necessary to pick up the phone, so phone records were consistent with the phone being left while [...] was in Atlantic City.  Thus, even though the incoming calls were slightly closer in time to the shooting, [...]’s Facebook activity, which requires access to the phone and account, was much stronger evidence it was [...] using the phone in Mays Landing.
[brief] L. 2001, c. 216.  (Da93-95)  The original bill had proposed instead to increase the Graves Act parole disqualifier from three to five years for convictions for specified offenses with a firearm.  A. 11 (introduced May 11, 2000).  (Da98-103)  However, the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee amended the bill on March 15, 2001, to apply the five-year parole disqualifier to the certain persons statute instead.
[brief] (3T52:7).  Also, [...]'s dashcam was not integrated into his patrol vehicle.  (3T68:3).  On November 20, 2017, there is no GPS data to reflect that [...] was using his MDT.  (3T64:2-3).  There was also no entry to show that [...] was logged into the MDT on November 20, 2017.  (3T64:5-6).  If the MDT is powered off the GPS is not working.  (3T54:2).  ProPhoenix also would not be working.  (3T54:4).  When an Officer logs into ProPhoenix the GPS system is automatically on.  (3T54:15).  Also, dispatch can tell who is logged into ProPhoenix.  (3T54:21).  The radios did not have GPS, there were no body cameras with GPS, and the only GPS capabilities came through the MDT attached to the car.  (3T56:5, 10, 12).  If an Officer were away from his car there would be no way to know where the Officer was, you would only know the location of his car, however, not [...]’s car because [...] did not have GPS in his car.  (3T56:12).  The MDT has a night mode where it dims and darkens the light being emitted from the MDT screen.  (3T59:22).  The screen on the MDT is mounted but Officers can rotate and angle the screen left and right.  (3T61:6).  In addition, the screen of the MDT can be blocked out so that the entire screen goes black.  (3T64:13).  The computer would still be logged in and running but the screen would be black.  (3T64:18).  [...]'s Testimony Concerning the Property Checks at Issue
[brief] ”  Id. at 354 (citing J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011)).  This specific distinction by the A.A. Court makes it clear that protections afforded to juveniles and the importance of being Mirandized in the presence of a parent or guardian and being given the opportunity to consult privately does not apply to adults.  In A.A., the mother did not serve as a buffer between the police and the juvenile as envisioned in State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304 (2000), but “unwittingly assisted the police and helped gather incriminating evidence. ”  Id. at 358.  In fact, the juvenile in A.A. was never Mirandized at any point while in custody and neither was his mother advised that he had the right to remain silent.  Id. at 347.  While the Court in Tiwana cites A.A. as a clarification of the meaning of “functional equivalent of interrogation,” see Tiwana, 256 N.J. 44, it does not stand for the proposition that conversations between adult defendants and their parents in the presence of law enforcement are to automatically be considered interrogation or its functional equivalent that require the administration or re-administration of Miranda rights.  Again, the present case is vastly dissimilar to A.A. in that defendant is an adult who had been Mirandized and invoked his right to remain silent.
[directive] 2.  [예/Yes]  [아니요/No] 귀하는 심리검사 결과 귀하의 행위가 반복적이고 충동적인 행동양식을 나타내는 특성이 있다고 판명되고, 귀하가 성범죄자 치료를 잘 받을 수 있고(혜택을 받을 것이고) 이러한 치료에 참여할 의사가 있다면, 판사는 교정청의 권고에 따라 성범죄자 치료를 위해 성인진단  및 치료센터에 구금을 선고할 것이나, 부과된 형량이 7년을 초과하는 경우에는 성인진단  및 치료센터가 아닌 다른 시설에 먼저 구금된다는 것을 아십니까?  지령 제01-18호(02/23/2018)에 의거 공포된 수정 양식, 페이지 CN 11081-Korean 1/3  Revised Form Promulgated by Directive #01-18, (02/23/2018), CN 11081-Korean page 1 of 3  Do you understand if the examination reveals that your conduct is characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior, and you are amenable to (will benefit from) sex offender treatment and willing to participate in such treatment, the judge shall, upon recommendation of the [...], sentence you to confinement at the [...] for sex offender treatment; however, if the sentence imposed is greater than 7 years, you will first be confined at a facility other than the [...]?
[brief] (1T 7-24 to 8-1, 9-3 to 5)  [...] testified that the Suburban initially caught his attention because “[i]t was traveling at a high rate of speed in the center lane. ”  (1T 9-6 to 8)  [...] did not have a radar gun, but he noticed that the Suburban was passing the vehicles in the right and left lanes.  (1T 9-9 to 18)  [...] admitted that the vehicle was not going fast enough to issue a speeding ticket.  (1T 46-17 to 47-4)  [...] testified that he followed the vehicle and pulled it over not because of its speed, but because “the front windows were tinted.
[brief] Q.  As it relates to the Defendant [...] as it relates to their obligations to, quote, enforce applicable industry standards, is it your position that the Defendant [...] was required to have an understanding as to the applicable industry standards?  A. Yes.  Q.  And as it relates to the applicable industry standards, is it your understanding in general, and your opinion in this matter, that [...] as a professional engineer was required to know those standards?  A.  As it refers to the applicable standards, yes, they should know them.  (Pa2027)  (T81:3-16)  Simply put, each of the plaintiff’s experts when confronted with the actual work contracted for, agreed that ensuring that the plans and specifications were complied with constituted the practice of engineering.
[brief] The Bencosme Court stated: the express language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5 does not support plaintiff’s request for an exemption from the statutory bar for those that claim to be victims of insurance fraud.  Recognizing such an exemption would be inconsistent with the Act's purpose of reducing auto insurance costs and would undermine one of the original goals of the statute…  Bencosme, at *12.  So, even if [...] made incorrect determinations about appellant/plaintiff [...]’s coverage, the material facts for purposes of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5 are that he resided in New Jersey and principally garaged his vehicles here; he had a North Carolina policy which did not provide coverage required by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.
[brief] (4T 51-1 to 10, 52-18 to 20)  He saw a parked car with someone inside, knocked on the door to try to wake the person, and when she did not wake, called 9-1-1.  (4T 54-9 to 13, 54-20 to 55-7, 55-12, 56-22 to 60-11)  He waited for EMS to arrive, briefly talked to them, and then went home.
[brief] In any event, an Answer was filed on behalf of [...] and the [...] Planning Board September 27, 2022 (Pa 3059). ²  The First Amended Complaint makes no allegations against [...] nor any claim for relief from [...] (Pa 1604).  The only request for relief in the First Amended Complaint is for declaratory relief regarding the [...] Planning Board as set forth in Count 13, which seeks to set aside the approval granted by the Planning Board due to alleged fraudulent representations made to the Board (Pa 3278).  --- ²  Since the First Amended Complaint made no claim against [...], and since [...] had no involvement in the proceedings before the [...] Planning Board, the Defendants were designated as “[...] Planning Board (pleaded as Township of Holland and its Planning Board)”.  The Crossmotion to Dismiss requested alternate relief for leave to file an Amended Answer in the event the Court required [...] to be specifically named as a Defendant (Pa 3344).  This was not required by the Trial Court.
[brief] This bill repeals the existing law and replaces it with a procedure which makes a number of substantive changes in the process through which fiscal notes are produced.  As opposed to the current hit-or-miss nature of the system, this bill would: (1) Require the Legislative Budget Officer to request a fiscal note or certify that there are no fiscal implications to every pending bill; (2) Establish strict time limits within which the Executive Branch must respond to the request for a fiscal note; (3) Provide for a "legislative fiscal estimate" to be made if the executive fails to produce the fiscal note; and (4)  Establish a system for emergency fiscal information on bills which are likely to move quickly.  \[ \text{5287(1980)} \]  SENATE AMENDMENTS TO SENATE, No. 287
[brief] Furthermore, the appellate court’s order of December 2, 2022, does not prohibit plaintiff from pursuing claims beyond wrongful death or survival actions (Pa49 – Pa66).  Plaintiff filed two motions to demand these documents: one on August 16, 2021 (Pa35 – Pa43), and a second on March 10, 2023 (Pa74 – Pa87).  The initial motion was dismissed along with the complaint and amendment on October 22, 2021 (Pa44 – Pa48).  During the hearing on March 31, 2023, the trial judge mishandled the request for service records by treating it as a pre-trial discovery matter and denied the request immediately after the hearing (2T, Pa103 – Pa104).  Point IV
[brief] *R. 2:10–2; State v. Macon*, 57 N.J. 325, 333, 337–38, 273 A.2d 1 (1971).  I  On the robbery charge, the judge failed to (1) charge second-degree robbery as a lesser-included offense, (2) define “deadly weapon,” and (3) otherwise follow the model jury charge.  These errors possessed the clear capacity to contribute to an unjust result.
[brief] Upholding the Initial Decision.  ......................... ..........  Aa23 | Aa Reference | Description | |-------------|-------------| | Aa1-Aa3 | October 31, 2018  Application for Accidental Disability Pension | | AAa4-AAa6 | October 8, 2019, Initial Board Letter to [...] Denying Accidental Disability Pension Granting Ordinary Disability | | Aa7 | October 15, 2019, Letter to the Board Requesting the Matter Be Transferred To The Office of Administrative Law | | Aa8 | December 10, 2019  Pension Letter Transferring The Case to The Office of Administrative Law | | Aa9-Aa22 | August 15, 2022, Initial Decision of Honorable [...], ALJ | | Aa23 | September 16, 2022  [...]
[directive] This is sufficient to support the judge’s reasoning [to consider the organization crime aggravating factor].”)  Notwithstanding this decisional law, for purposes of applying these Guidelines, the organized crime aggravating factor should not be used automatically or routinely based merely upon the fact that the controlled dangerous substances involved were likely to have been grown, produced, imported, manufactured, or otherwise handled by others, or were originally produced in foreign countries so as to depend upon sophisticated methods of importation and distribution to regional and local markets.
[brief] However, none of those cases supports the conclusion that an insured’s reasonable expectations override clear policy language in this context.  See Appellants’ Opening Brief, at 34-38 (citing Sparks v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 100 N.J. 325 (1995); Kievit v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 34 N.J. 475 (1961); and Harr v. Allstate Ins. Co., 54 N.J. 287 (1969)).  Rather, in each such case the determination involved whether the insured’s expectations were “objectively reasonable. ”  Simply, the insureds’ expectations have no bearing on coverage when such expectations are objectively unreasonable.  See, e.g., Cassilli v. [...], 408 N.J. Super. 147, 155 (App. Div. 2009) (holding that the plain language of the policy barred coverage and the insured’s purported reasonable expectations of coverage did not override this result, and noting “[A]lthough the declarations page failed to specify a ‘named insured,’ under the circumstances, [...] could not have entertained a reasonably objective expectation that he qualified as such.
[brief] TABLE OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS & RULINGS BEING APPEALED  A.  Ruling for notice to non-parties 11/13/23 ............ 1T150 & 174-181  B.  Order providing for notice to non-parties 11/14/23 .......... Pa95 C.  Ruling in favor of defendants at post-trial hearing 1/29/24 .... 2T5-20  D.  Final Order 2/8/24 .................................................. Pa96  III.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY  The Appellants will rely upon the Procedural History set forth in their initial brief.  IV.  STATEMENT OF FACTS  The Appellants will rely upon the Statement of Facts set forth in their initial brief.
[brief] Respondent [...] has cited additional matters that are clearly distinguishable from this matter.  In the Matter of [...], Sheriff’s Officer (S9999A) [...], (May 2, 2022) (RA11-25) involves a candidate who had previously been terminated from the [...] for conduct unbecoming involving an incident at a bar in Hoboken, New Jersey and an allegation that he attempted to convince other individuals to coordinate misleading versions of the incident.
[brief] 34032, at * 7; Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp., 238 N.J. at 211, 208 A.3d at 872; Schmidt v. Laub, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 827, at * 11. \footnote{As she did in the court below, plaintiff conflates the separate and distinct purposes of the Dispute Clause and the Delegation Clause in arguing that the court should decide issues of arbitrability.  A delegation clause is a specific clause in an arbitration agreement by which parties agree to delegate gateway issues, such as arbitrability issues, to an arbitrator (here, it is the Delegation Clause that states in pertinent part that the AAA or the JAMS rules “will apply”).  Ja37.  A dispute clause, on the other hand, defines which claims are arbitrable or not under the agreement (here, it is the Dispute Clause that expressly defines which “Disputes” are covered by the parties’ arbitration agreement).  Ja37.  Because the Delegation Clause delegates gateway issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, it is up to the arbitrator to decide potential disputes as to whether a claim, such as plaintiff’s purported claim for “public injunctive relief,” fall under the Dispute Clause.}  As such, [...] correctly found that an arbitrator should decide any issues of arbitrability.  Ja10.
[brief] This Court’s function is limited in that it should not disturb the trial Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law unless it is convinced that they are “so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice. ”  Mt. Hill v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 403 N.J. Super. 146, 192-193 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv s. Ins. Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).  Plainly that is not the case here.  Quite the contrary – the trial Court’s findings and conclusions followed ineluctably from the evidence presented.
[brief] N.J.S.A. 13:20-28(a); N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.3(a).  Even if a proposed activity is exempt, the applicant must still obtain any and all other applicable approvals from DEP, the State, the federal government, or local entities before performing the activity.  N.J.A.C. 7:38-2.3(c).  If a proposed activity is not exempt from the Highlands Act and constitutes “major development” in the preservation area, it requires a “Highlands preservation area approval” from DEP before construction activities commence.
[directive] Threat to harm or kill anyone at the Index Assault  SAMPLE QUESTION:  This time, did he/she threaten to harm or kill you or anyone else?  ✔Count any threat to harm or kill uttered at the Index Assault by the Defendant to cause bodily harm to any person other than the Defendant (i.e., do not count threats of self-harm or suicide).  ✔Count bodily gestures commonly recognized as threats of physical harm, e.g., mimic shooting a gun or slashing a throat.  ✘Threats involving only pets or property, or threats of non-bodily harm, do not count for this Item.  ✘Do not include any threats occurring before or after the Index Assault.  3.
[brief] *Ibid.*  Examiners compare those test ammunitions to those recovered from the scene to determine if they are a “match”—if the examiner determines that they are, he opines that the ammunition from the scene came from the suspect gun.  Examiners have not updated their approach to answering this question over the last 80 years: they use a comparison microscope to view two bullets or cartridges side by side, and make a determination based on the correspondence or lack thereof of the markings that they observe.  *Id.* at 8.  According to firearm analysis, firearms have *class characteristics* and *individual characteristics*.  The existence of class characteristics is uncontroversial.  Class characteristics are the features predetermined by a manufacturer and thus common to all guns of certain makes and models.  *Id.* at 8-9.  In other words, class characteristics are measurable features that are common to a class of firearms that are intentionally made by the manufacturer.  National Research Council, *Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward* 152 (2009) [hereinafter *A Path Forward*] (Da 102-484).  The class characteristics of the gun are imparted on bullets and their casings when they are fired.  [...] at 8.  For instance, the “the number of grooves cut into the barrel of a firearm and the direction of ‘twist’ in those grooves are class characteristics,” which result in certain “rifling” marks on the ammunition that passes through the bullet as it is ejected.  A Path Forward at 152.  Any ammunition fired by a gun with those grooves — which many guns of many makes and models share — will demonstrate the same “rifling” impressions.  [...] at 15.  Those particular impressions on ammunition found at a crime scene “can filter and restrict the range of firearms” that are capable of leaving those impressions.  A Path Forward at 152.  A bullet with wide groove impressions could not have been shot from a gun that predictably leaves narrow groove impressions as a result of the deliberate design of the barrel.  [...] at 15.  More controversial, and at issue in this case, is the existence of so-called individual characteristics.