ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] Ten of these establishments lost their licenses days.1 permanently; the rest were suspended for periods ranging from 5 to 240  Other enforcement actions that were settled quietly and not documented in the Bulletins likely resulted in lesser penalties for similar conduct.  And, undoubtedly, some licensees chose to refuse service to LGBTQ+ individuals altogether as a way of avoiding sanction.  There is no way of determining how much the five Attorneys General who oversaw ABC prior to 1967 knew about the agency’s harassment of LGBTQ+ New Jerseyans.
[brief] 11  I.  The Trial Court Erred by Compelling Arbitration Before a Substitute Arbitrator Where the Parties Had Only Agreed to Arbitrate Before a Single, Specifically Named Arbitrator.  (Raised Below, Pa57-68)  ........................................................................  11  II.  The Trial Court Erred in Finding that Plaintiffs’ Established a Deadlock Requiring Court Intervention Exists (Raised Below, Pa57-68)  ........................................................................  21  III.  The Trial Court Erred by Proceeding When the Case Was Automatically Stayed Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:15-67 et seq.  (Raised Below Pa13, Pa49, Pa53)  ..........................................................  24  CONCLUSION  .....................................................................................
[brief] The arbitration and trial date were set in the second case management order dated May 21, 2024.  The order of July 18, 2025 also set arbitration and trial dates, although the dates were different than those provided in the May 21, 2025.  Order.  It is disingenuous for Appellant to rely upon arbitration and trial dates in support of an argument of prejudice when they know that the dates were set when the parties were still conducting paper discovery.  The parties are still engaged in paper discovery with Appellant still serving paper as recent as October 21, 2024.  Responses to that discovery was not due until December 21, 2024.  The Discovery End Date was March 1, 2025(Pa62).  Thus, there was and is no prejudice to Appellants.
[directive] that R. also Section See to 5.2.  pursuant prepared Report Incident Enforcement and with to/transmitted be appended shall Report Incident Enforcement Law Preliminary the event, Cause. of Probable Affidavit the in reference by incorporated expressly Directive. this of issuance upon immediately operational become shall Section This Report.  Incident Enforcement Law Uniform of Preliminary Development 5.2 prepaxe easily quickly and may officers which police by process a develop to appropriate is  It the to pertaining circumstances factual the describes relevant succinctly that document an electronic that belief arresting officer's the for basis the and arrested was defendant the which for offense pursuant consulted prosecutor a reviewed/approved by be could document  This exists. cause probable 3.3.2, subsection to pursuant designated officer supervisory or a Directive this of 3.2 Section to complaint- fora apply or acomplaint-summons issue whether to decision the inform to helping a in captured information the issued, is acomplaint-warrant If Directive. this under warrant whether decision prosecutor's the inform might also Report Incident Enforcement Law Preliminary pretrial for a in preparing prosecutor the assist may and detention, pretrial for motion a file to "provide appearance to first at (requiring prosecutor 3:4-2(c)(1)(A) R. See hearing. detention the concerning report incident enforcement law preliminary available any of copy a with defendant cause"). probable establish to used material any and offense the Police, State consultation the with in Justice, Criminal of Division the Accordingly, 49 Page Police, of of Association Chiefs Jersey New the New and of Jersey, Association County Prosecutors Law Preliminary electronic an appropriate as or supplement periodically update and shall develop of pertaining range a information to capture to used be form could that Report Enforcement Incident burglaries/thefts, assaults, drug offenses, offenses, violence (e.g., domestic common offenses designed be should Incident Report Enforcement Law Preliminary
[brief] SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY  APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. [...]  STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. [...], Defendant-Appellant.  CRIMINAL ACTION  On Appeal from a Judgment of Conviction of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County.  Indictment No. [...] Sat Below: Hon. [...], P.J.Cr., Hon. [...], J.S.C., and a Jury.
[brief] The primary issue raised on appeal is whether the Commission’s decision to uphold the Hoboken’s non-appointment of [...] to Fire Captain was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.  Because this matter does not involve a challenge to the validity of the Civil Service statutes or the rules promulgated thereunder, a separate brief on the merits is unnecessary; the primary parties to this appeal have adequately addressed the relevant issues, and the public interest does not require the Commission’s participation.  Nevertheless, the Commission’s decision should be affirmed.  It is well-established that an agency’s determination will not be upset unless it is affirmatively shown that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or that it lacks fair support in the record as a whole.  Karins v. City of Atl. City, 152 N.J. 532, 540 (1998).  A strong presumption of reasonableness attaches to the Commission’s decision.  In re Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429, 437 (App. Div. 2001).  Thus, a court must affirm the decision if the evidence supports it, even if the court may question its wisdom or would have reached a different result.  Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm’n, 169 N.J. 579, 587 (2001).  The Commission, the body with the expertise to evaluate, interpret, and administer the Civil Service Act, was in the best position to analyze the facts and issues and determine that, based upon N.J.A.C. 4A:4-4.8(b), [...] was not entitled to a promotion due to expiration of the eligibility list since no genuine vacancies existed prior to its expiration.  For these reasons, the Commission’s decision should be affirmed.
[brief] iii.  **Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct Caused [...] to Suffer an Ascertainable Loss**  In order to establish a claim under the CFA, a plaintiff must show an unlawful act by the defendants, an ascertainable loss, and a causal nexus between the two.  *See Varacallo v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.*, 332 N.J. Super. 31, 43 (App. Div. 2000).  In granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the trial court reasoned that, despite Defendants’ attempted enforcement of a debt made void by N.J.S.A. 17:11C-33(b), [...] had failed to show an ascertainable loss under the CFA.\(^3\) *See SoR p. 18-19 (Pa50-Pa51). *  However, in *Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.*, 138 N.J. 2, 23 (1994), the New Jersey Supreme Court “conclude[d] that an improper debt . . . against a consumer-fraud plaintiff may constitute a loss under the [CFA], because the consumer is not obligated to pay an indebtedness \(^3\)  Even in the absence of a showing of ascertainable loss, “a consumer-fraud plaintiff can recover reasonable attorneys' fees, filing fees, and costs if that plaintiff can prove that the defendant committed an unlawful practice. ”  *Cox v. Sears Roebuck & Co.*, 138 N.J. 2, 24 (1994).  Thus, as Defendants’ violations of the NJCFLA unequivocally constitute a “crime of the fourth degree,” Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, making dismissal without an opportunity for a fee application inappropriate.  *See* N.J.S.A. 17:11C-33(b). arising out of conduct that violates the Act. ”
[brief] If any party objects to such a trial and there may be a genuine issue as to a material fact, the court shall hear the evidence as to those matters which may be genuinely in issue, and render final judgment.  At the hearing or on motion at any stage of the action, the court for good cause shown may order the action to proceed as in a plenary action wherein a summons has been issued, in which case the defendant, if not already having done so, shall file an answer to the complaint within 35 days after the date of the order or within such other time as the court therein directs.
[brief] In April 2021, the Board voted unanimously to approve a plan to provide significant structural and other improvements to the District’s two aging elementary school buildings.  The referendum was placed on the ballot for the November 2, 2021 election, and included a proposal to fund a $33 million project to renovate [...] into a pre-K-4 school and to build a new school for students in grades 5-8 on the high school campus.  (19a-21a.)  The District established --- 1  The Procedural History and Statement of Facts have been combined for the Court’s convenience because they are inextricably intertwined.
[brief] ”  (8T 76-23 to 77-1)  However, with respect to aggravating factor three, the Court found that this “does not mean that the risk [that he would commit another crime] is really any different” because [...] was “hemmed in” while in prison and did not “have a great deal of autonomy of action. ”  (8T 77-2 to 6)  The Court found that “the only real evidence” it had of [...]’s risk of committing another offense was how he was “behaving the last time” he was at liberty “out in the world. ”  (8T 77-11 to 78-3)  The Court found that the evidence [...] presented did not “in any way mitigate[] the risk of reoffense,” and that its “assessment with regard to the risk level [] really hasn’t changed”; thus, the Court placed the same weight on aggravating factor three as it had during the original sentencing—substantial weight.
[brief] Maybe the jury would agree that “[t]he repetitive use such a weighty object strongly implie[d] an intentional act. ”  (Sb 33)  But if strangling someone for a few minutes, *State v. O’Carroll*, 385 N.J. Super. 211, 219-220 (App. Div. 2006), or hitting someone with a brick, *Jenkins*, 178 N.J. at 354-364, are possibly acts of manslaughter rather than murder, such that the jury must be instructed on lesser-included offenses to murder, there is no basis for categorically asserting that hitting someone with a wine chiller can constitute only murder.
[brief] (T2/50:1-11).  In particular, he noted that retail cannabis facilities typically utilize small loading vehicles such as a van for their product.  (T2/51:16-24).  He also notes that the existing delivery corridor that serves the Property had a more frequent, intense use with larger vehicles previously compared to what was proposed for the retail cannabis operations; therefore, the Application presented an improvement over existing conditions dramatically.  (T2/52:25-53:13).  [...] also explained that “back-in loading” is not uncommon throughout the City, providing numerous examples.  (T2/57:8-64:17).  He further clarified that ambulances arriving at the [...] facility do not use the driveway next to the Property – they have their own entrance – and the parking spaces that [...] is concerned about are for visitors to the emergency department.
[directive] Access to and use of stored non-alert ALPR data is limited to the following three purposes: a post-scan BOLO query, a crime-scene query, and crime trend analysis.  An authorized user does not need to obtain approval from the chief or a designated supervisor, or Attorney General or county prosecutor or designee, for each occasion on which he or she accesses and uses stored non-alert data pursuant to this Section.  10.2.1  Post-Scan BOLO Query  A law enforcement agency is authorized to compare a post-scan BOLO list against stored ALPR data where the results of the query might reasonably lead to the discovery of evidence or information relevant to any active investigation or ongoing law enforcement operation, or where the subject vehicle might be placed on an active initial BOLO list.  (For example, a law enforcement agency may review stored non-alert data to determine whether a specific vehicle was present at the time and place where the ALPR data was initially scanned for the purpose of confirming or dispelling an alibi defense, or to develop lead information for the purpose of locating a specified vehicle or person.  A law enforcement agency may also check stored data to determine whether a vehicle that was only recently added to an initial BOLO list had been previously observed in the jurisdiction before it had been placed on an initial BOLO list.  )  -10- 10.2.2
[brief] C.  Tax Levy Growth Limitation.  At roughly the same time that State policymakers were restructuring the school funding formula, they were also tackling another looming crisis facing New Jersey: high and increasingly escalating local property taxes.  In April 2007 the Legislature enacted L. 2007, c. 62, which imposed a 4% limitation on school district and municipal tax levy increases.  L. 2007, c. 62 §§ 1-2; N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38 and -39.  In July 2010, the Legislature further revised the tax growth limitation provisions, which had been set to expire in 2012, imposing further restrictions on local tax levy increases, and reducing the amount by which local tax levies could increase from 4% to 2%.  L. 2010, c. 44, § 4; N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-38.  And for school districts, the new law eliminated a number of cap “exemptions,” limiting them to adjustments for enrollment increases and for increased costs for health care and pension contributions.  L. 2010, c. 44, §§ 4-5.  It also permitted districts to submit a special question to the voters to increase the levy above the capped amount under certain circumstances, L. 2010, c. 44, § 5, and to “bank” any portion of the permitted 2% increase plus applicable adjustments not used by the school district in a budget year.  D.
[brief] [4T 98-11 to 98-23].  [...] offered to take over the maintenance of that easement from the Township, and the Board Engineer confirmed that that arrangement was acceptable.  [4T 97-14 to 98-7].  The Board Engineer’s review letters initially indicated that [...]’s stormwater design was a concern, but after several plan reviews he confirmed that the final design complied with the LUDO and was appropriate.
[brief] Abdelhak v. Jewish Press, Inc., 411 N.J. Super. 211 (App. Div. 2009)  ..................31  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986)  ...............23  Appell v. Reiner, 81 N.J. Super. 229 (Ch. Div. 1963)  ........................................41  Borough of Seaside Park v. Comm’r of N.J. Dep’t of Educ., 432 N.J. Super. 167 (App.  Div. 2013)  .................................................................19  Brady v. Carteret Realty Co., 70 N.J. Eq. 748 (E. & A. 1906) ..............................27  Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) ...........................................23, 24, 25 Cape May Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Ludlam, 45 N.J. 121 (1965)  .................................42  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986)  ............................23  Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. State, 89 N.J. 131 (1982)  .................................40  Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Senate of State of N.J., 165 N.J. Super. 144 (App. Div. 1979) .................................................................................................39  Claypotch v. Heller, 360 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 2003) ...............................26  Clayton v. Kervick, 56 N.J. 523 (1970) .............................................................34  Coleman v. Fiore Bros., Inc., 113 N.J. 594 (1989)  .............................................43  Elmora Hebrew Ctr., Inc. v. Fishman, 125 N.J. 404 (1991)  ...............................31  Estate of Smith v. Cohen, 123 N.J. Eq. 419 (E. & A. 1938)  ...............................27  Estate of Vafiades, 192 N.J. Super. 301 (Law Div. 1983) .................................42  Housel v. Theodoridis, 314 N.J. Super. 597 (App. Div. 1998) ..................................26  Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Farmland Dairy Farms, Inc., 282 N.J. Super. 140 (App. Div. 1995)  ..............................................................................................................37
[brief] Civil Litigation Conference Review background information about the purpose and scope of the 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation, and access to Conference documents, including scholarly papers, empirical research, and agenda materials.  2010 Conference on Civil Litigation  [...], [...]  May 10-11, 2010  Purpose Statement  At the request of the [...], the [...] is sponsoring a conference at [...] on May 10 and 11, 2010 to explore the current costs of civil litigation, particularly discovery, and to discuss possible solutions.
[brief] 2 State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) .................................................................... 40, 45 State v. L.A., 433 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2013) ..............................................  40 State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1 (1991), supplemented, 130 N.J. 109 (1992) .. 48 State Statutes N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 ..................................................................................................  1 N.J. S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) ..................................................................................... 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b) (5)(a) ................................................................................. 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4) ..................................................................................... 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 ................................................................................................ 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) ........................................................................................... 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) ........................................................................................... 1 N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j) ............................................................................................ 2 N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b) ........................................................................................... 2 Other Authorities Standard 4-4.1 Duty to Investigate and Engage Investigators, ABA Standards for Criminal Justice 4-4.1 ................................................................. 41 Procedural History
[brief] Residents currently use offsite street parking on Walnut Street in addition to the onsite parking lot.  Board Member [...] found the Applicant’s Planner to be not credible due to the fact that the Applicant’s Planner stated that the Traffic Manual, which is considered to be the “bible to all traffic engineers” did not apply.  Parking is currently substandard, and the addition of new units would only serve to exacerbate this problem.  (Pa032)
[directive] The policies cover both Official Court Reporters (OCRs) - who are Judiciary  The employees - and Certified Realtime Court Reporters (CRCRs) - who are not employees. of new directive (1) announces a requirement that Assignment Judges must be informed to to requests by trial judges assign staff OCRs cover court proceedings, and (2) establishes a process for using private court reporters to provide Communication Access Realtime of to Translation (CART) services as an accommodation pursuant Title the Americans with II are new Disabilities Act.  Taken together, these two policies designed to support fair and by of efficient use court reporters and to ensure access to and participation in court events court users with disabilities.  This directive (3) also reaffirms that with Assignment Judge to by at may approval freelance stenographers be used the parties their expense create of that unofficial daily records court proceedings, with the understanding such records cannot for substitute the official court record created by CourtSmart.
[brief] [...] does not have any attorneys who utilize the Newark office as their primary office location, and none of [...]’s New Jersey-barred attorneys ever consulted on, billed for, or did any work in connection with the representation of Plaintiff.  Da168 ¶ 9; Da196 ¶¶ 6–7.  Similarly, neither [...] nor any other [...] attorney did any work in connection with the representation of Plaintiff that involved issues of New Jersey law.  Da190–92; Da224–25.  On or around September 13, 2016, Plaintiff, [...], and [...] executed an escrow agreement (entitled, “Transaction Agreement”) in connection with the loan.  Da24 ¶ 30; Da82–90.  Pursuant to the escrow agreement, [...] was obligated to hold $2.5 million deposited by Plaintiff in an escrow account pending email confirmation from Plaintiff’s bank that it had received initial funding under the loan of no less than $5 million, at which time [...] would release the escrowed $2.5 million to [...].
[brief] --- \(^1\) *[...], et al. v. [...], et al.*, [...].  In the unequivocal and undisputed absence of an arbitration provision in the contract at issue, [...] asks this Court to ignore the actual terms of the 2022 Addendum and instead rely on a purported “transactional history” to manufacture an arbitration clause that does not appear in the four corners of the 2022 Addendum.
[brief] Implementing redevelopment plans will become significantly harder because developers will be discouraged from undertaking redevelopment projects for fear that after they invest substantial money and time into a redevelopment project, negotiating a redevelopment agreement and a PILOT agreement, and submitting a site plan, any member of the public who opposes it, can then mount a challenge to a redevelopment plan out of time.  This lack of confidence in the redevelopment authority could leave municipalities powerless to correct blight in their neighborhoods.  The Trial Court properly found that enlargement was not warranted.
[brief] The trial court’s decision dismissing [...]’s complaint as to [...] should be affirmed because it is not the custodian of records in this case. \(^8\)  Under N.J.S.A. 47:1A-6, to maintain a cause of action under OPRA, a --- \(^8\)  Respondents do not address claims made against the [...] before the trial court because [...] has not raised such claims on appeal.  [...] did not include the [...] in her notice of appeal, and has indicated requestor must be denied access to a government record by the custodian of record.  See Firemen’s Ass’n, 230 N.J. at 278 (“OPRA clearly and unambiguously confers the right to initiate a suit after a public agency’s denial of access only upon the requestor. ”) (emphasis in original).  In other words, there can be no denial of access when the requested documents do not exist, or are not in the records custodian’s possession.  Bent v. Twp.  of Stafford Police Dep’t, Custodian of Records, 381 N.J. Super. 30, 38-39 (App. Div. 2005) (upholding the GRC’s final administrative determination that a custodian has no obligation to search for or provide access to records beyond their respective agency’s files).  “OPRA applies solely to documents ‘made, maintained or kept on file in the course of [a public agency’s] official business. ’”  Id. at 38 (quoting N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1.1).  Here, [...]—not [...]—is the custodian of the historical items at issue.
[directive] This process is a fluid one, and utilization of a rigid "script" would be counterproductive.  There must be the ability for the trial judge and attorneys to deal with circumstances as they evolve during the process.  Some degree of latitude to allow for variation in style is acceptable, so long as the essential ingredients of a thorough and meaningful voir dire are included.  Compliance with the standards requires accountability.  Assignment Judges and Presiding Judges shall be responsible for implementing, monitoring, and assuring continued compliance with the standards.  Adherence to these standards will provide a sufficient measure of uniformity and predictability to the jury selection process throughout the State, will ensure that the process is thorough and meaningful, and will allow for reasonable flexibility and exercise of judicial discretion.