njcourts.gov
RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2436-20 K.D.M., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.A.M., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued December 19, 2022 – Decided December 28, 2022 Before Judges Haas, DeAlmeida …
-
njcourts.gov
… Court in affirming the Bankruptcy Court. We recognize those decisions are unpublished, but they relate directly to the …
-
njcourts.gov
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0880-15T2 RICHARD J. SPILLANE, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, Respondent. _________________________ Argued May 15, 2019 – Decided July 16, 2019 Before Judges Accurso and Moynihan. …
-
njcourts.gov
… words, for extending the double counting principle to PTI decisions as defendant now proposes. We note the double …
-
njcourts.gov
… decision was or on what it was based. We cannot base our decisions on speculation. The circumstances surrounding the …
-
njcourts.gov
… Redden administratively appealed the respective panels' decisions to the full Board. On April 28, 2021, the full … (quoting Trantino VI, 166 N.J. at 173). Therefore, Board decisions may only be reversed if "arbitrary and … 213, 222-23 (2016) ("Judicial review of the Parole Board's decisions is guided by the arbitrary and capricious standard …
-
njcourts.gov
RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2436-20 K.D.M., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.A.M., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued December 19, 2022 – Decided December 28, 2022 Before Judges Haas, DeAlmeida …
njcourts.gov
… 213, 222 (2016). Thus, we are bound to uphold the Board's decisions unless they are arbitrary or capricious. Id. at …
-
njcourts.gov
… 213, 222 (2016). Thus, we are bound to uphold the Board's decisions unless they are arbitrary or capricious. Id. at …
njcourts.gov
… ignored substantial evidence, as well as its own prior decisions allowing for reallocation of entry-level job … can explain why its June 19 decision differed from its decisions before and after that ruling. The Commission shall … agencies are entitled to discretion in making decisions, that discretion is not unbounded and must be …
-
njcourts.gov
… ignored substantial evidence, as well as its own prior decisions allowing for reallocation of entry-level job … can explain why its June 19 decision differed from its decisions before and after that ruling. The Commission shall … agencies are entitled to discretion in making decisions, that discretion is not unbounded and must be …
njcourts.gov
… certain issues the parties had resolved; (2) the judge made decisions on the record on May 5, 2016, but did not memorialize these decisions in the judgment; (3) the judge erred by failing to make decisions on certain issues raised during the trial; (4) the …
-
njcourts.gov
… certain issues the parties had resolved; (2) the judge made decisions on the record on May 5, 2016, but did not memorialize these decisions in the judgment; (3) the judge erred by failing to make decisions on certain issues raised during the trial; (4) the …
njcourts.gov
… the HRC issues only advice and recommendations, not binding decisions, it was established by regulation and operates …
njcourts.gov
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1889-23 JOHN JOHNSON, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. __________________________ Submitted September 16, 2025 – Decided October 1, 2025 Before Judges Gilson and …
njcourts.gov
… taken from orders and judgments and not from opinions, oral decisions, informal written decisions, or reasons given for the ultimate conclusion." …
njcourts.gov
… "The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is limited." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, … N.J. 575, 587 (1988)). Such deference certainly applies to decisions made by the DOC 6 A-3011-17T2 Commissioner given … does not grant OCPOS the authority to render final agency decisions regarding 8 A-3011-17T2 This delegation is …
njcourts.gov
RECORD IMPOUNDED SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2589-15T2 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. M.H., Defendant-Appellant. Argued June 7, 2017 – Decided Before Judges Alvarez, Accurso, and Lisa. On appeal from the …
njcourts.gov
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4016-15T4 PEG LEG WEBB, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY PINELANDS COMMISSION, Respondent-Respondent. ______________________________________________ Submitted September 11, 2017 – …
-
njcourts.gov
… "The judicial capacity to review administrative agency decisions is limited." Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, … N.J. 575, 587 (1988)). Such deference certainly applies to decisions made by the DOC 6 A-3011-17T2 Commissioner given … does not grant OCPOS the authority to render final agency decisions regarding 8 A-3011-17T2 This delegation is …