ai-law-society-lab/PublicDefenseDataset huggingface dataset:
[directive] In making this determination, the assistant prosecutor, deputy attorney general, or supervisory officer shall consider whether, without the ability of the pretrial services program to monitor conditions of release, there are reasonable assurances that if defendant were to be charged by a complaint-summons, he or she will appear in court when required, the safety of any other person or the community will be protected, and the defendant will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process.  If the determination is made to overcome the presumption of applying for a complaint-warrant, the assistant prosecutor or deputy attorney general shall document the reason(s) for that decision in the case file.
[brief] PROCEDURAL HISTORY  On or about December 23, 2021, plaintiff [...] (the applicant) submitted an application for preliminary and final major subdivision approval with defendant [...] (the Board).  See Ia18 to Ia22 (application).  Hearings were held on April 5, 2022 (1T) and June 14, 2022 (2T).  On the latter date, the Board voted to deny the subdivision.  See 2T144-9 to 2T145-8.  The applicant subsequently requested reconsideration.  On August 2, 2022, the Board convened and declined the applicant's request.  See 3T29-22 to 3T31-6.  See the August 23, 2022 memorializing resolution at Ia64 to Ia72.  On September 23, 2022, the applicant and its principal (collectively, the plaintiffs) filed an action in lieu of prerogative writs in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County ([...]).  See Ia1 to Ia17 (complaint).  The Board answered on October 17, 2022.  See Ia73 to Ia87.  On December 21, 2022, the Honorable [...] entered a consent order (Ia88 to Ia89) permitting objector [...] to intervene.  [...]'s answer (Ia90 to Ia98) was filed on January 5, 2023.  --- 1  Planning Board hearing transcript references: 1T (April 5, 2022); 2T (June 14, 2022; 3T (August 2, 2022).  Superior Court trial transcript reference: 4T (December 20, 2023), 2  "Ia__" refers to the Intervenor-Appellant's appendix.
[brief] An informant’s veracity may be established by “demonstrating that the informant proved to be reliable in previous police investigations. ”  State v. Sullivan, 169 N.J. 204, 213 (2001).  “However, under the totality of the circumstances, ‘past instances of reliability do not conclusively establish an informant's reliability. ’”  Ibid. (quoting Smith, 155 N.J. at 94).  In this case, [...]’s testimony that the C.I. provided information on 20 prior occasions and was 75 percent reliable did not establish the C.I.’s reliability for a number of reasons.
[brief] ”  (ECF 63, at 13-14.)  [...] further argues that [...] waived any relevance objection because the parties agreed to those search terms and [...]’s supplemental responses indicated it would be producing all non-privileged documents that hit on those terms.  (ECF 63, at 13; ECF 63-1 at 3.)  [...] disputes that it waived any relevancy objection.  [...] argues that its agreement to work with [...] to run search terms does not waive its relevancy objections and points to federal court decisions finding no waiver in such situations.  (ECF 65, at 6-7.)  [...] also rejects [...]’s request that [...] provide a “relevancy log” describing the reason [...] is withholding each document as irrelevant.  (ECF 65, at 8.)  The court finds that [...] timely and properly lodged a relevancy objection, and the court rejects [...]’s demand that [...] produce all resulting hits based on [...]’s arguments that all hits are presumptively relevant and responsive.
[directive] Addendum A | December 2020  CEDs and Other Less-Lethal Devices and Ammunition  12  Reporting and Evaluation  12.1  In all instances when a CED or less-lethal device is fired or discharged during an actual operation, the law enforcement officer who employed such force shall complete:  (a)  Any agency required reports made necessary by the nature of the underlying incident; and (b)  A report in the Attorney General’s Use of Force Reporting Portal.  12.2  In all instances when a CED or less-lethal device is fired at or discharged upon a person by a law enforcement officer, a higher-ranking supervisor shall investigate the circumstances and outcome of the device’s use.  The investigating supervisor shall report on the incident to the law enforcement executive, providing the law enforcement executive information on all relevant circumstances, deployment, and outcome, including whether the deployment avoided injury to an officer and avoided the need to use deadly force.  Upon receipt, the law enforcement executive shall issue a report, including a finding on whether the firing and all discharges complied with the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy.  12.3  Review of CED and Less-Lethal Device Deployments:  (a)  For municipal and county law enforcement agencies, the law enforcement executive shall forward the report to the County Prosecutor within 10 business days of the firing/discharge, unless the County Prosecutor grants the law enforcement executive’s request for a reasonable extension of time within which to forward the report, for good cause shown.  The County Prosecutor shall review the matter for compliance with this Policy.  If the County Prosecutor finds the firing or discharge of a CED or less-lethal device to not be in compliance with the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy, the matter shall be forwarded to the Director of the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability or their designee.  (b)  For statewide law enforcement agencies, the law enforcement executive shall forward the report to the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice within 10 business days of the firing/discharge, unless the Director grants the law enforcement executive’s request for a reasonable extension of time within which to forward the report for good cause shown.  The Director shall review the matter for compliance with this Policy.  If the Director finds the firing or discharge of a CED or less-lethal device to not be in compliance with the Attorney General’s Use of Force Policy, the matter shall be forwarded to the Director of the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability or their designee.  12.4  In all instances when a CED is fired at or discharged upon a person, a superior officer designated by the law enforcement executive shall immediately take custody of and secure the device.  The superior officer shall safeguard and preserve the digital information in that 16  USE OF FORCE POLICY
[brief] Specifically, the court held:  “By shielding the FDCPA Matters from the bankruptcy court.  [Plaintiff] secured a benefit for himself in the bankruptcy proceeding while attempting to protect his interests in the FDCPA Matters.  Such behavior runs afoul of [the plaintiff’s] duties as a debtor and threatens the integrity of the bankruptcy process.  *Vedernikov*, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148668, at *14-15 (D.N.J. Aug. 30 2019).  *Vedernikov* is analogous to this case.
[directive] DATE: June 7, 1999 of of SUBJECT: Seizure  Motor Vehicles, Payment Liens and Official Use Requirements  I. of Suwnarv  the Directive's Intent  The purpose of this directive is to update the policies for seizing, forfeiting and retaining motor vehicles for official use found in the Department's Guide to Equitable Sharing for Foreign Countries and Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies (dated October and EOAF 1, 1996), Directives and Highlights of the directive are as 20 22. follows: establishment of a minimum net equity 1.) $5,000 requirement for retention of motor vehicles for official of use; elimination of the ceiling for payments $25,000
[directive] Aggravated Assault in the statute; (fireman, first aid person, school teacher, bus driver, DYFS worker, judge, motorbus operator); third degree if victim suffers bodily injury; otherwise, fourth degree.  4th Degree  $1,000 to $2,500  10% permissible 19  Updated December 2, 2013  Bail Schedule 2 STATUTES WHERE BAIL MAY BE SET BY A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE OR A MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE OR, IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE’S ABSENCE, THE MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR OR DEPUTY COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PURSUANT TO RULE 3:26-2 requires warrants
[brief] Empower, 453 N.J. Super. 565, 584.  [...]’s level of responsibility in this case is for 85% of covered costs.  It neither “largely succeeded” nor prevailed as a party that can properly shift the vast majority of its legal costs to its adversary under established New Jersey law.  The trial court erred in disregarding the purpose and proper application of the “relative culpability” approach.
[brief] Specifically, the Appellants argue that “[[...]] first learned of the legal problem of not registering as a charity with New Jersey on December 18, 2020, when the complaint was served. ” (Pa 7).  The Appellants further contend that [...]’s first notice of actual harm or damage from the same occurred on April 27, 2022, when the underlying court granted summary judgment. ”  Ibid.  The Appellants’ arguments are flawed as it has misapplied the facts and holding from the precedential case, Grunwald.  Specifically, the Appellants have misunderstood/misconstrued the terms “actual damage” to mean “real” or ascertainable damages and moreover, have failed to realize that the decision in Grunwald concerned a finding of damages and not liability.
[brief] In that case, default judgment was entered on October 12, 2018 and the movant timely filed her R. 4:50 claim less than one year later on October 10, 2019.  *Id.* at *3*.  The movant was living abroad in India during the litigation and never responded nor participated.  *Id.* at *1*.  In *M.L.S.* there was no signed property settlement agreement, so the non-movant relied upon the notice of proposed equitable distribution to support the default judgment.
[directive] The Law General Directive Attorney 4.6.3. b of the on Attorney fellable form, will be posted the PDF both PDF and in which supplied Form, is Directive. aforementioned with the along website General's Form at version of the Scoring handed out any other supersedes Form Scoring This Please computer-based training programs.  resource in any a posted as programs and training versions with prior revision dates.  use any and do not revision date, of the make note be law enforcement Scoring Form that is to used by of the version only  This is the undergoes Scoring Form ODARA.  In the event that the scoring the when Jersey New throughout will posted to the version will be announced and be modified future, the modification in the website.
[brief] Graves, 83 N.J. at 577 (emphasis added).  In Graves, the Court noted that the purchase of the local church property “was made with local funds without Diocesan financial assistance” and that “the deeds run to the parish corporation and do not contain any words of trust or reverter in favor of the Diocese. ”  Id. at 574.  The Supreme Court in Graves affirmed the lower court ruling that was in favor of the national church as to its declaratory judgment claim and it placed control of the local church property in the hands of the [...].
[brief] The State relies on scare tactics to expand the scope of Defendant’s arguments.  The State argues that accepting the Defendant’s argument would force every state “to accept ‘the lowest common denominator of gun control among the various states,’” Sb15 (citation omitted), and that Defendant’s interpretation of the Second Amendment would require New Jersey to allow those from states that do not issue permits to carry in New Jersey.  Sb16.  Defendant has never made the argument that New Jersey must allow individuals from states that do not require licenses to carry in New Jersey.  Defendant is not asking New Jersey to apply the law of any other state within its borders.  Defendant argues that a carry permit issued by Pennsylvania satisfies the requirements of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4.
[brief] M34.  Additionally, the Trial Court focused on the reasons behind the request for a hardship variance, noting that Plaintiffs modified their application after the discovery of the bald eagle’s nest and sought all variances resulting from this discovery so as to sufficiently buffer the nest.  M31.  As the Trial Court held, “[a]mple evidence in support of that proposition was provided to the Board, and no contrary evidence was produced.  In the Court’s view, a stronger, more equitable case for variance relief is difficult to imagine, but the Board nevertheless denied the variance relief. ”  M31.  The Trial Court further determined that Plaintiffs “provided overwhelming and uncontested evidence demonstrating [their] satisfaction of the special reasons standard applicable to requests for variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), the positive criteria standards applicable to requests for variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c), and the negative criteria standards applicable to requests for variance relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70.
[brief] FURNITURE FIXTURES and EQUIPMENT (FFE)  Furnishing, fixtures and equipment that are a functional unit of a building condemned are compensable if a reasonably willing purchaser would pay substantially more for the building with such items included than he would without them, City of Long Branch v. Jui Yung Liu.  I have reviewed the report of [...] and his testimony and conclude the enhancement value of the furnishings, fixtures and equipment to be $163,035.00.  Da116.
[brief] While many of these cases were decided under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the New Jersey Supreme Court has noted that “[t]he purpose and scope of our discovery rules … are substantially the same as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. ”  *Hammock by Hammock v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc.*, 142 N.J. 356, 369 (1995).  any finding that the responding parties had failed to meet their discovery obligations, the trial court took control of the responding parties’ methodologies and procedures for finding and reviewing relevant evidence.
[directive] The forms are available from the Criminal Practice Division of the Administrative Office of the Courts.  I.  Introduction  Uniform Defendant Reporting System C  The Uniform Defendant Reporting System breaks down the total of the courts' information needs for Intake, Bail, PTI, and Sentencing into a series of independent sections of an omnibus form.  The heart of the system is a Uniform Defendant Intake Report (UIDR) which captures the main objective information needed about a defendant.  The Uniform Defendant Intake Report is the "foundation" report for each of the key decision points (Bail, PTI, PSI, etc.) of a case.
[brief] The model jury charge for malicious prosecution provides that “[t]he general rule is that a malicious prosecution action must be predicated upon the institution of a proceeding before a judicial tribunal. ”  Model Jury Charge 3.12(B) at p. 8.  A number of New Jersey cases, in a variety of contexts, have made clear that it is the act of filing a criminal complaint that meets the first element, not what happens procedurally thereafter.  For example, a “criminal action” is instituted even if a municipal court or grand jury does not find probable cause in the first instance.  See, e.g., Jacobs v. Mark Lindsay & Son Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 458 N.J. Super. 194 (App. Div. 2019) (municipal court did not find probable cause and dismissed charge); Geyer v. Faiella, 279 N.J. Super. 386, 393-95 (App. Div. 1995) (grand jury did not return indictment because of lack of probable cause; Appellate Division concluded “criminal complaint” element was satisfied at pleading stage).
[brief] Pa277.  Additionally, active Trooper [...] provided an affidavit that he also did not receive any notice of the Ricci Act.  Pa129.  Despite not receiving notice, [...] attempted to file an Eligibility Registration Form back in September of 2019.  Pa131.  His Registration Form notes that he was present at Ground Zero/WTC on 9/15/01 for 10 hours.  Pa131.  In response to his filing, [...] received correspondence from the [...] requesting medical information.  Pa133.  [...] contacted Pensions on November 18, 2019, and was advised that the Eligibility Registration Form, “is for those who are currently sick.  Not for possible future illnesses. ”  Pa133.  It is unknown at this time how many other Troopers Eligibility Registration Forms may have not been filed or how many Troopers were not registered because the member was not ill at the time the forms were sent.  On March 23, 2023, correspondence was sent to the [...] to clarify the request that the Board consider all of the affected Troopers in a single collective petition.  Pa27.  The correspondence also requested that the Board take administrative or judicial notice of all affidavits submitted in all actions with respect to the issue of lack of notice of the Ricci Act for members of the [...].  Pa27.  To date, over ninety-eight (98) active and retired Troopers have submitted affidavits attesting that they did not receive any notice of the Ricci Act.  Pa88-283.
[brief] Indeed, even former Personnel Director and current Assistant Business Administrator [...] said [...] meant what he wrote in the Executive Order and believed in the tenants set forth therein.  It is essential that the Court not simply conclude a meaning “according to the strict letter” but rather advance to the true meaning the document has deduced from the context in which it was written.  *Lesniak v. Budzash*, 133 N.J. 1, 14 (1993).
[directive] Backup Registry Court Reporters for ADA Accommodations  Judiciary OCRs currently are used to provide Communication Access Realtime of Translation (CART) services as an accommodation pursuant to Title the ADA.  To date, II ADA staff OCRs have been able to cover accommodations while also providing coverage for of court proceedings and webcasting Supreme Court oral arguments.  It is possible, however, = of that an increase need - potentially including an influx CART accommodations - could in exceed current or future staffing resources.  of  As a matter policy, the Judiciary will allocate staff OCRs first to cover trials and other of court proceedings and next to cover webcasting Supreme Court oral arguments, because of aspects these assignments require greater familiarity with and training on Judiciary Directive #08 -19 Page 3 of operations.  Effective immediately, however, the Judiciary also will permit the use qualified if but private Certified Realtime Court Reporters (CRCRs) to provide CART services, only there are insufficient staff OCR resources.
[directive] In 2022, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law L.2021, c.459, which established parameters for law enforcement presence at polling places, early voting sites, and ballot drop boxes.  In light of these parameters, in February and October 2022, as well as October 2023, I issued updated guidance to help our state’s law enforcement leaders remain fully informed about the role of law enforcement in elections.  As Election Day approaches this year, I am providing this important guidance to ensure continued compliance with our state’s election laws.  As in the past, this guidance is not exhaustive, but rather emphasizes New Jersey’s rules regarding law enforcement activity at polling places, early voting sites, and ballot drop boxes, as well as the importance of protecting voters from intimidation and coercion.  With your assistance and cooperation, we will continue to ensure that elections in New Jersey are conducted safely, securely, and in accordance with our country’s highest democratic ideals.  1
[brief] There were no other expert reports for [...].  (B)  *Improper grade of the strip shopping center, requiring thirty inches of excavation for the entire tract of the strip shopping center;*  (C)  *Excavation of thirty inches of soil on the strip shopping center site and the expensive disposal of the thirty inches of soil.  The entire site was lowered thirty inches unnecessarily due to the error;*  [...] had no engineering expert, and thus cannot prove that the “entire tract” (not just the area of the [...]) was “entirely excavated” excessively, or what the “disposal” of the additional soil may have cost, or breaking out the incremental cost of the allegedly excessive excavation from the excavation [...] concedes was intended.  Thus, there is no admissible proof that the grading error caused damage to the project at all.
[brief] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BARRING THE TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S LIABILITY EXPERTS FOR NET OPINIONS AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO [...] ON THAT BASIS SINCE THESE EXPERTS BASE THEIR OPINIONS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ON FACTS, DATA, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, EXPERIENCES, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS, AND DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS.  *(Raised below: Pa1021-1066; 1T42-52; 2T21-33; 3T)*  The opinions offered by [...], P.E. and [...], P.E. in their various expert reports do not constitute “net opinions”.  *N.J.R.E.* 702 provides the following: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.  Relevant to this rule, "[t]he true test of admissibility of such testimony is not whether the subject matter is common or uncommon or whether many persons or few have knowledge of the matter; but it is whether the witnesses offered as experts have peculiar knowledge or experience not common to the world which renders their opinions founded on such knowledge or experience and aid to the court or jury in determining the questions at issue."  Indeed, "an expert must 'be suitably qualified and possessed of sufficient specialized knowledge to be able to express [an expert opinion] and to explain the basis of that opinion.'"  State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 458-59 (1991) (citations omitted).
[brief] (1T12-18 to 13-12).  During the February 10, 2023, surveillance operation, the officers were dressed in plain clothes, but displayed badges identifying themselves as Elizabeth police officers and were equipped with body-worn cameras and holstered handguns that also were on display.  (1T15-24 to 16-12).  The body-worn cameras were activated by double-tapping on the front; a red light on top of the camera indicated that the camera was recording.  (1T16-13 to 22).  The video reverted to thirty seconds before the camera was activated, but the ensuing thirty-second video would not have audio.  Sound would be recorded after the thirty-second initial period elapsed.  (1T16-23 to 17-6).  That afternoon, pedestrian and vehicle traffic at the location was constant.  (1T17-7 to 16).  In-person surveillance was conducted by officers in non-descript vehicles, some driving around the area and others parked while watching the area through binoculars.  (1T17-20 to 18-6).  In addition to the in-person surveillance, the [...] used a U.A.S., or Unmanned Aerial System, essentially a drone, to provide an elevated and more comprehensive view.  (1T18-7 to 17; 2T8-3 to 11; Da9).  Video footage from the drone was displayed to the operator on a live feed.  (1T18-18 to 21).  During this surveillance operation, information was relayed from the drone operator to the other officers and from officers in the field back to the drone operator.  (1T18-22 to 19-4; 2T8-7 to 11).  Officers conducting this surveillance observed an individual named [...], known to the officers as having prior convictions for numerous narcotics offenses, walking back and forth in the area of Anna Street, Jackson Avenue and Bond Street, and interacting with other people.