Director motion in New Jersey

2025Conclusions of Law A. Summary Judgment Summary judgment “‘serve[s] two competing jurisprudential philosophies’: first, ‘the desire to afford every litigant who has a bona fide cause of action or defense the opportunity to fully expose his case,’ and second, to guard ‘against groundless claims and frivolous defenses,’ thus saving the resources of the parties and the court.” Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.

2025Conclusions of Law A. Summary Judgment Summary judgment “‘serve[s] two competing jurisprudential philosophies’: first, ‘the desire to afford every litigant who has a bona fide cause of action or defense the opportunity to fully expose his case,’ and second, to guard ‘against groundless claims and frivolous defenses,’ thus saving the resources of the parties and the court.” Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.

2021CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Taxpayer’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the Director’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 3 2 See e.g., Wigton v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 12 N.J.

2021We review the Director's motion for partial summary judgment using the same standard applied by the Tax Court—"whether, after reviewing 'the competent evidential materials submitted by the parties' in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], 'there are genuine issues of material fact and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.'" Grande v. Saint Clare's Health Sys., 230 N.J. 1, 23-24 (2017) (quoting Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22, 38 (2014)).

2021We review the Director's motion for partial summary judgment using the same standard applied by the Tax Court—"whether, after reviewing 'the competent evidential materials submitted by the parties' in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], 'there are genuine issues of material fact and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.'" Grande v. Saint Clare's Health Sys., 230 N.J. 1, 23-24 (2017) (quoting Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22, 38 (2014)).

2021Rather, in March 2014, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) temporarily added "butylone" to Schedule I, along with butylone's "optical, positional, and geometric isomers, salts and salts of isomers." Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of 10 Synthetic Cathinones Into Schedule I, 79 Fed. Reg. 12,938 , 12,942-43 (Mar. 7, 2014); see United States v. Phifer, 909 F.3d 372, 375-76 (11th Cir. 2018) (describing the process by which butylone was added).

2019Failure to Appeal from PTI Rejection or Move to Admit Defendant into PTI We reject, however, defendant's assertion that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to "fil[e] a motion to admit defendant into the [PTI] program," or "fil[e] an appeal with the lower court to accept him into PTI over the [PTI] Director's objection." We note that "[i]n order to overturn a prosecutor's rejection, a defendant must 'clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision constitutes a patent and gross abuse of discretion. '" State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507, 520 (2008).

2019Further, "[t]he scope of judicial review of PTI decisions is 'severely limited[,]' and interference by reviewing courts is reserved for those cases where needed 'to check . . . the "most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness."'" State v. Lee, 437 N.J.

2018This statute "confers expansive authority on the [MVC] to suspend a driver's reciprocity privilege on 'any other reasonable grounds' even if the driver is neither a New Jersey resident nor a New Jersey licensee." Johnson, 226 N.J.

2018See ibid. ("Clearly, appellant's own violation of a requirement that he surrender a driver's license issued by one state before obtaining a license from another state cannot deprive the Director of the authority to suspend his New Jersey license.") Additionally, the MVC suspended appellant's driver's license pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:5-30(a), which provides: Every registration certificate, every license certificate, [and] every privilege to drive motor vehicles . . . may A-0781-17T1 6 be suspended or revoked, and any person may be prohibited from obtaining a driver's license or a registration ce

2008See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 , 307 A.2d 571 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”).

2008See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 , 307 A.2d 571 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”).

2008See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 , 307 A.2d 571 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”).

2008See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 , 307 A.2d 571 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”).

2008See Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 364 , 307 A.2d 571 , appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 1106 , 94 S.Ct. 831 , 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973) (permitting a court to “decide issues which need not be decided when it believes that course is warranted”).

2007See ibid.; TAS Lakewood, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.

2007See Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 133 Cal.App.4th 514 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 , 884 n. 7 (2005).

2007See Jim Beam Brands Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 133 Cal.App.4th 514 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 874 , 884 n. 7 (2005).

2004See, e.g., Stryker Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 168 N.J. 138, 165 , 773 A.2d 674 (2001) (Stein, J., concurring) (quoting Director’s brief to the effect that N.J.S.A. 54:10A-10 is applicable where unorthodox business practices of the taxpayer caused misallocation of income).

2004See, e.g., Stryker Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 168 N.J. 138, 165 , 773 A.2d 674 (2001) (Stein, J., concurring) (quoting Director’s brief to the effect that N.J.S.A. 54:10A-10 is applicable where unorthodox business practices of the taxpayer caused misallocation of income).

2004The question of whether a director can claim status as an insured under a corporation's policy after initiating litigation against that corporation raises important issues of public policy not directly addressed by the California courts in a published opinion. [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d at 475 (citations omitted).] Healthcare argues that, for public policy reasons, Lomes precludes a corporate director from obtaining a defense through a general comprehensive liability policy insuring a corporation, and its directors and officers, when an action is brought by the corporation or its directors and officers