ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] Discharge and referral information may include the following:  specific medical discharge information;  recommended follow-up medical care;  contact information for the local sexual violence program;  contact information for the FNE Coordinator;  contact information for the local law enforcement agency;  contact information for the County Prosecutor’s Office of Victim Witness Advocacy;  contact information for the Victims of Crime Compensation Office; and  the Crime Victims Bill of Rights.  Victims shall always have access to transportation home, or to a safe, alternate location, following a medical forensic exam.  For victims who report to law enforcement, a law enforcement officer shall arrange transportation for the victim.  For victims who present at a healthcare facility and have not reported to law enforcement at the time of the exam, it is recommended that the healthcare facility have a plan to arrange transportation for the victim.  The FNE and/or the sexual violence program may offer victims the opportunity to consent to follow-up telephone contact.  The purpose of this contact is to evaluate the victim’s well-being and to offer further opportunities for referrals to follow-up care and services.  Where appropriate, be sure to take the following actions:   for child and adolescent victims sexually assaulted by family members or caretakers, CP&P must be notified;  if the sexual assault occurred in the context of a domestic violence incident, provide the victim with information regarding their designated county domestic violence program; and  provide the victim with information about protective orders for sexual assault and domestic violence incidents.  -24-  ATTORNEY GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES TO VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
[brief] See e.g., Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2116, 2131, 204 L.Ed.2d 522 (2019) ([...], dissenting); See also, Community Financial Services Assoc., of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 51 F.4th 616 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. granted in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assoc., 143 S.Ct. 978 (2023); Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, 45 F.4th 359 (D.C. Cir., 2022), cert. granted in part, 143 S.Ct. 2429 (2023); Jarkey v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 34 F.4th POINT V  THE PRIMARY DECISIONS RELIED ON BY TRIAL COURT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE, SINCE THEY DO NOT ADDRESS  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTES  SPECIFYING THE COMPOSITION OF AND DELEGATING REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO THE COUNCIL UNDER ART.  III, PAR. 1 AND ART.  IV, SEC. 1, PAR. 1 AND THE RELATED PRIVATE NON-DELEGATION DOCTRINE (Pa115, Pa123-132).
[brief] (6T57-10 to 58-1).  Defendant raised the issue again, arguing that the AP offered her personal opinion that defendant was guilty of murder, thereby usurping the jury’s function.  (6T95-14 to 21).  The judge reiterated that defendant was in fact charged with murder and, therefore, there was no prosecutorial misconduct.  (6T95-22 to 96-3).  Defendant’s mistrial motion was denied, (6T95-22 to 96-4), and properly so.
[brief] (14T 10-19 to 11-24)  She also made clear that her ruling was to admit those convictions in a “sanitized” form under State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377 (1993), i.e., only telling the jury the degree of crime, date of sentence, and length of sentence imposed.  (14T 8-15 to 19)  When it came time for defendant to decide whether to testify, defense counsel made it clear that it was the judge’s ruling on the admissibility of these six convictions which caused defendant to decide not to testify in his own behalf, and defendant agreed with that statement.  (15T 48-23 to 49-15)  Because the judge’s ruling to admit those six disputed convictions against defendant if he testified was an abuse of discretion under Rule 609 that was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant’s convictions should be reversed and the matter remanded for retrial.
[directive] 9  Internal Affairs Records ............................................................................ 54 9.1  The Internal Affairs Report .................................................................................................... 54 9.2  Internal Affairs Index File ....................................................................................................... 54 9.3  Investigation Files .................................................................................................................. 55 9.4  Retention Schedule ................................................................................................................ 55 9.5 Security of Internal Affairs Records ....................................................................................... 56 9.6 Confidentiality ....................................................................................................................... 56 9.7 Coordination with Civilian Review Boards ............................................................................. 57 9.8 Coordination with Other Law Enforcement Agencies ........................................................... 61 9.9 Reporting to Law Enforcement Executive ............................................................................. 61 9.10 Reporting to County Prosecutor ............................................................................................ 62 9.11 Public Reports ........................................................................................................................ 63 9.12 Personnel Records ................................................................................................................. 64 10 The Responsibilities of County Prosecutors ............................................... 65 INTERNAL AFFAIRS POLICY & PROCEDURES | August 2020 Appendix Appendix A Sample Citizen Complaint Information Sheet Appendix B Internal Affairs Report Form Appendix C Internal Affairs Complaint Notification Appendix D Sample Immediate Suspension Notice Appendix E Sample Response Letter Appendix F Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action Appendix G Miranda Warning Appendix H Sample Use Immunity Grant Appendix I Witness Acknowledgement Form Appendix J Administrative Advisement Form Appendix K Internal Affairs Policy Reporting Form Appendix L Public Synopsis of Disciplinary Action Appendix M Final Notice of Disciplinary Action
[brief] [...] Zoning Ordinance  Oradell’s Zoning Ordinance, at §240-6.5(I), sets forth the use and bulk regulations for the B-3 Zone in which Lot 5 is located:  I.  B-3 Business and Apartment.  (1)  Permitted uses shall be as follows:  (a)  All uses permitted in the B-1 Zone.  Bulk requirements of the B-1 Zone apply to construction under this section.  (b)
[directive] Promulgated by Directive #21-06 (December 11, 2006)  Page 10 of 29  2.  a.  This trial is expected to last for __________ to ________ weeks.  Is there anything about the length or scheduling of the trial that would interfere with your ability to serve?  b.  Do you have any medical, personal or financial problem that would prevent you from serving on this jury?  c.  Is there anything that would make it difficult for you to sit, listen or deliberate for two hours without a break?  3.  Introduce the lawyers and the defendant.  Do any of you know either / any of the lawyers?  Has either / any of them or anyone in their office ever represented you or brought any action against you?  Do you know Mr. / Ms _________________________?  Name of defendant  4.  Read names of potential witnesses.  Do you know any of the potential witnesses?  5.  I have already briefly described the case.  Do you know anything about this case from any source other than what I’ve just told you?  6.  Are any of you familiar with the area or address of the incident?  a.  If yes, can you sit and decide this case based solely on the evidence admitted during the trial and the law as explained to you by the Court and not on any impression gained from prior knowledge?  Standards for Jury Selection
[brief] Under New Jersey law, a party seeking to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel must demonstrate that: (1) the issue to be precluded is identical to the issue decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the proceeding; (3) the court in the prior proceeding issued a final judgment on the merits; (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment; and (5) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party to or in privity with a party to the earlier proceeding.  *Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey*, 316 N.J. Super. 487, 506 (App. Div. 1998) (citing *In Re Dawson*, 136 N.J. 1, 20 (1994)).  The doctrine of precluding a claim by a non-party is applicable in the present case as outlined in *Taylor v. Sturgell*, 553 U.S. 880 (2008).
[brief] Modification of [...] Agreement.  In 2021, [...] agreed to increase the portion of the Property it would acquire for recreation and open space purposes from 4 acres (the 50-foot greenway along Mill Pond) to 11 acres, which would now also include the southwestern portion of the Property bordering Mill Pond, closest to East Brunswick.  Pa 91.  To effectuate the acquisition, [...], [...], [...], and [...] entered into an agreement on July 26, 2021 (“County Agreement”).  Pa 51-53.  Upon acquisition, [...] would maintain the portion of the Property acquired by [...].  Pa 56-57.  As set forth in [...] Agreement, The Borough intends to further amend the Redevelopment Plan to permit the Development Property to be developed in part as a residential development with approximately 300 units, 70 of which are for low and moderate households and with the Open Space Parcel consisting of a portion along Mill Pond and the eastern most portion of the property being used for passive recreation, all as shown on the attached Concept Plan[.]  [Pa 49].  This agreement, adopted after the most recent Master Plan Reexamination Report completed in 2019, plainly contemplates an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to accommodate the expanded area of land to be acquired by [...] for open space purposes.  D.
[directive] The term "request" shall mean either a written or oral request; provided, however, that all requests are made with sufficient clarity so as to enable a reasonable person to understand the information that is being sought.  The law enforcement official responding to oral requests should make best efforts to respond orally over the telephone; however, it shall not be unreasonable to require the requester to appear in person to receive the information.  Unless the parties note otherwise, it shall be understood that there is no duty to release or obtain information that is not in the possession of the law enforcement agency at the time of request.  Notwithstanding any other provision of this Executive Order, where it shall appear that the information requested or to be examined will jeopardize the safety of any person or jeopardize any investigation in progress or may be otherwise inappropriate to release, such information may be withheld.
[brief] Pa326 – Pa327  Defendant, [...]’s September 6, 2023 Motion for Reconsideration ............................................. Pa328 – Pa329 September 22, 2023  Order denying Defendant, [...]’s Motion for Reconsideration ............... .Pa330 – Pa331 Defendant, [...]’s October 11, 2023 Motion for Leave to Appeal the Court’s August 25, 2023  Orders granting Plaintiffs’ [...] and [...]’s motion to re-open and extend discovery and denying [...]’s Motion for Summary Judgment ................................................................. Pa332 – Pa334 October 30, 2023  Order denying Defendant, [...]’s Motion for Leave to Appeal .............................................. Pa335 Defendant, [...]’s December 1, 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment, including only Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ........................................... Pa336 – Pa344 Plaintiffs, [...] and [...]’s December 26, 2023 Opposition to [...]’s December 1, 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment, including only Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts and Counterstatement of Facts .................................................. Pa345– Pa363 | Cases | Page(s) | |----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------| | **27-35 Jackson Ave., LLC v. Samsung Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd.**, 469 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 2021)
[brief] Plaintiffs, [...] ("Institute") and [...], individually, instituted this action by Verified Complaint and Order to Show Cause on September 21, 2023.  (Pa1)  The trial court entered a Scheduling Order on September 22, 2023.  (Pa14)  On October 4, 2023, the trial court per the Honorable [...], A.J.S.C., denied the plaintiffs’ application for a preliminary injunction.  (Pa50)  Defendant [...] ("[...]") filed an Answer on October 18, 2023.  (Pa71)  Prior to the deadline for the State defendants\(^1\) to file an Answer to the Complaint, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), returnable December 1, 2023.  (Pa80, 84)  On November 21, 2023, the plaintiffs filed opposition to those motions, together with a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to R. 4:46-1 and 2.  (Pa89)  The hearing on the motions was adjourned to January 5, 2024 at the [...]’s request.  On January 10, 2024, the trial court entered an Order granting the motions to dismiss and denying the cross-motion for summary judgment.  (Pa113)  On February 8, --- \(^1\)  The term "State defendants" includes the [...], [...], [...] and Governor [...].  2024, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from said Order.  An Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on February 15, 2024.  (Pa133)²  STATEMENT OF FACTS
[brief] [Cra178 (emphasis added). ]  The rules only set the minimum loss ratio tests that carriers must meet; they do not address the outer limit of whether or not a rate is excessive.  That outer limit is a judgment call by the Department, which was committed to the Department by the Legislature’s grant of authority in the LTCI Act.  [...] testified that during the rate review process, [...]’s response that it intended to use profits from this block to pay claims for other business signaled that the rate request was excessive under the common-sense understanding of that adjective because the request went beyond what was usual, proper, or necessary to enable it to pay claims under its LTC policies.  Any argument that [...] lacked notice that its premium rate increase request might be considered to be excessive is nonsensical.  C.
[brief] [(P-80), (P-103), Da925-926, Da1532-33 (emphasis added.)]  This provision clearly does not provide the “express authorization” required to abandon the American Rule.  The words “attorneys fees” do not appear anywhere in this clause and “Losses” are not defined to include counsel fees.  Moreover, the indemnification is limited to “Losses incurred by Seller after the date of this Agreement,” plainly revealing that the parties’ agreement did not intend to include indemnification for alleged losses that preceded the agreement.  The “material breaches” that trigger the indemnification clause are also limited to the SPA itself.  The loss must be caused by a material breach of a representation, warranty covenant or agreement of the Buyer “contained in this Agreement,” or a material inaccuracy in a “document delivered by Buyer as required by this Agreement. ”  (P-80), (P-103) Da925-926, Da1532-1533.  Therefore, it clearly would not apply to the wholly separate transactions that are the basis of the judgment.  Moreover, Paragraph 6.3 is included in Article VI, which sets forth the remedies for breaches of the representations and warranties contained in Sections 3.2, 3.2 and 4.1 through 4.3 of the agreement.
[brief] Finally, pursuant to \textit{N.J.S.A.} § 17:33A-4(e), a person or practitioner violates the act if, for pecuniary gain, he directly or indirectly solicits any person or practitioner to engage, employ or \textsuperscript{12}  A "person" is broadly defined to include individuals, practitioners, corporations, companies, associations, societies, firms, partnerships and joint stock companies.  A "practitioner" also broadly includes a licensee of this State authorized to practice medicine and surgery, psychology, chiropractic, or law or any other licensee of this State whose services are compensated, directly or indirectly, by insurance proceeds, or a licensee similarly licensed in other states and nations, or the practitioner of any nonmedical treatment rendered in accordance with a recognized religious method of healing.
[brief] 335a (18:3-15).  Defendant [...] and Defendant [...] advised Plaintiff [...] that this lawsuit was a friendly lawsuit, filed to provide political coverage and to improve their deal.  421a(104:4-9).  Plaintiffs had informed Defendants [...] and [...] that Plaintiffs wished to serve as the COAH developer at [...].  337a (20:10-20:21); 340a-341a (23:22-24:11); 343a-345s (26:3-28:5).  But Defendants [...] and [...] stonewalled their efforts.  343a-344a (26:19-27:5).  Plaintiffs only later learned why:  Defendant [...] had secured for [...] (a Defendant in the Amended Complaint whom Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed) as early as January 2007 the deal to develop the affordable housing project at [...].  915a (22:20-33:19); 938a.  After learning about (a) the change in the nature of the [...] project, (b) the betrayal of [...], to [...], and (c) the unauthorized lawsuit Defendant [...] filed, [...] wanted nothing further to do with Defendant [...], Defendant [...], or the [...] project.
[brief] IF THIS COURT WERE TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE THE COMPLAINT IN LIEU OF PREROGATIVE WRITS, IT SHOULD RETAIN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IF THE ZBA ACTED ARBITRARILY, CAPRICIOUSLY AND UNREASONABLY (Pa022-Pa044; Pa065-Pa073).  Rule 2:10-5 allows the Appellate Division to exercise original jurisdiction as necessary to completely determine any matter on review.
[directive] Departmental Policy for Handling of Domestic Violence Incidents Officers1  Involving Law Enforcement  This Policy, prepared by the Division of Criminal Justice, is intended to serve as a model for the law enforcement agency in formulating a written policy regarding the Department's handling of domestic violence incidents involving a member of the law enforcement agency.  Each Department's policy should be reviewed by the Department's legal advisor to ensure that it meets all constitutional and statutory standards, meets the needs of the jurisdiction, and incorporates all provisions of this policy to provide guidance to those who must comply with the requirements of the policy.  As used in this Model Policy: the term "Department" refers to the particular Department or law enforcement agency that is the subject of this policy.  Law enforcement departments may include additional provisions to their policy as long as the additions do not conflict with the policies and procedures established by this model policy.
[brief] 1T – Jan. 17, 2018 (Trial)  2T – Jan. 18, 2018 (Trial)  3T – Jan. 22, 2018 (Gross Hearing)  4T – Jan. 23, 2018 (Trial)  5T – Jan. 24, 2018 (Closing Argument and Jury Charge)  6T – Jan. 29, 2018 (Verdict)  7T – Mar. 23, 2018 (Initial Sentencing)  8T – Feb. 1, 2023 (Resentencing)  Da – Defendant-Appellant’s Appendix Dca – Defendant-Appellant’s Confidential Appendix PSR – 2023 Presentence Report manslaughter count but did not merge Count 3 (unlawful possession of a weapon).  (Da8; 7T 64-1 to 70-15).  The judge imposed a sentence of ten years on the manslaughter conviction with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier pursuant to the No Early Release Act (NERA), and a consecutive sentence of ten years on the weapons conviction with a five-year parole disqualifier, for an aggregate sentence of twenty years subject to a thirteen-and-a-half year parole disqualifier.  (Da8).  On appeal, this Court affirmed [...]’s convictions but remanded for resentencing in light of State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246 (2021), to “conduct a fairness assessment of the ‘overall sentence’” including “consideration of all the aggravating and mitigating factors at the time the court considers the ‘overall sentence. ’”  State v. [...], [...] (App. Div. Feb. 17, 2022) (slip op. at 38).  (Da44)  On remand, the judge again imposed a sentence of ten years with an eighty-five-percent parole disqualifier pursuant to NERA on Count 1 (passion/provocation manslaughter).  (8T 106-25 to 107-5; Da49)  On Count 3 (unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit), the judge imposed a consecutive sentence of eight years with a five-year parole disqualifier.  (8T 107-16 to 24; Da49)  The aggregate sentence imposed was eighteen years with a parole disqualifier of thirteen-and-a-half years with three years of post-release NERA parole.  (Da49)  Defendant filed a notice of appeal with a motion to file as within time, which was granted by this Court on April 12, 2023.  (Da81-84)  Defendant thereafter filed a motion to transfer this appeal from the Sentencing Oral Argument Calendar to the Plenary Calendar, which was granted on May 9, 2023.  (Da85)  **STATEMENT OF FACTS**
[directive] See In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 381 n.3 (2020) (discussing consent order to reduce the county jail population); Exec. Order No. 124 (April 10, 2020), 52 N.J.R. 963(a) (May 4, 2020) (creating process to identify and furlough certain inmates in state prison); L. 2020, c. 111 (eff. Nov. 4, 2020) (awarding public health emergency jail credits).  The Attorney General also points to data that reveals a drop in the number of reported recent cases and deaths: 733 new cases for the week of May 27, 2020, compared to 164 new cases the week of December 15; and 6 deaths since July with none since September.  See [...], A State-by-State Look at Coronavirus in Prisons, (as updated Jan. 29, 2021), https://www.themarshallproject.org/ 2020/05/01/a-state-by-state-look-at-coronavirus-in-prisons.
[brief] (4T 7-23 to 8-9, 13-18 to 23)  The Court denied Defendant’s Wade motion as to [...], stating, “whether the generalized description provided by Mr. [...] constitutes an identification within the intendment [sic] of the Wade Henderson line of questioning, assuming that it does, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to show any evidence that this identification was made \(^9\) United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
[brief] On remand, the trial court found that the original landowner purposefully excluded the Riparian Grant in securing the mortgage.  The Judge further held that a Riparian Grant was not required to follow the upland property as a matter of law.  The Appellate Division, however, reversed the judgment of specific performance in favor [...].  It held that the Riparian Grant was included in the 1995 deed.  [...] and [...] each filed a petition for certification.