consideration factors in New Jersey

2019Ford Motor Co., supra 10 N.J.

2018Ford Motor Co., 10 N.J.

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2008Superimposed upon the consideration of these factors is the ultimate determination that the custody decision reached by the court be guided by the “best-interest-of-the-child” standard: The “best-interest-of-the-ehild” standard is more than a statement of the primary criterion for decision or the factors to be considered; it is an expression of the court’s special responsibility to safeguard the interests of the child at the center of a custody dispute because the child cannot be presumed to be protected by the adversarial process. [Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317-18 , 696 A.2d 556 (19

2008Superimposed upon the consideration of these factors is the ultimate determination that the custody decision reached by the court be guided by the “best-interest-of-the-child” standard: The “best-interest-of-the-ehild” standard is more than a statement of the primary criterion for decision or the factors to be considered; it is an expression of the court’s special responsibility to safeguard the interests of the child at the center of a custody dispute because the child cannot be presumed to be protected by the adversarial process. [Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 317-18 , 696 A.2d 556 (19

2005Id. at 456 , 825 A.2d 1192 (citing Pukowsky, supra, 312 N.J.Super. at 183 , 711 A.2d 398 ).

2005Id. at 456 , 825 A.2d 1192 (citing Pukowsky, supra, 312 N.J.Super. at 183 , 711 A.2d 398 ).

2020The court found that determination required application of the control test explained by our Supreme Court in Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422 (2001), and a consideration of the factors for determining the existence of a master-servant relationship under Restatement of Agency § 220 (1958).

2019"If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation." Ibid. (quoting Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76, 87 (2002)).

2019Furthermore, "[i]f the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of A-4909-15T2 23 obligation." Ibid. (quoting Shebar v. Sanyo Bus.

2019Nonetheless, we concluded that although the jury did not hear the statement, "which theoretically would have supported a finding of guilt on a lesser offense," because the jury "rejected the intoxication defense[,]" "the exclusion of the statement from the jury's consideration was not error[,]" but rather "inconsequential." Id. slip op. 11-12.

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2013Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 533 , 126 A.2d 646 (1956), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 994 , 104 S.Ct. 488 , 78 L.Ed.2d 684 (1983); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 110 (1963)); 1 Corbin on Contracts § 5.2 (Perillo ed. 1993). “ ‘If the consideration requirement is met, there is no additional requirement of gain or benefit to the promisor, loss or detriment to the promisee, equivalence in the values exchanged, or mutuality of obligation.’ ” Martindale, supra, 173 N.J. at 87 , 800 A.2d 872 (quoting Shebar, supra, 111 N.J. at 289 , 544 A.2d 377 ).

2008For example, if a juvenile charged with a Chart 1 offense suffered from a severe developmental disability, a prosecutor could consider this circumstance in determining whether waiver to adult court would promote the policy of "individual deterrence — that punishment will dissuade the [juvenile] from repeating *959 his criminal acts[,]" State in the Interest of C.A.H., 89 N.J. 326, 334 , 446 A. 2d 93 (1982), which is encompassed by the second factor set forth in the Attorney General's Guidelines.

2008For example, if a juvenile charged with a Chart 1 offense suffered from a severe developmental disability, a prosecutor could consider this circumstance in determining whether waiver to adult court would promote the policy of "individual deterrence — that punishment will dissuade the [juvenile] from repeating *959 his criminal acts[,]" State in the Interest of C.A.H., 89 N.J. 326, 334 , 446 A. 2d 93 (1982), which is encompassed by the second factor set forth in the Attorney General's Guidelines.

2008As we recognized in Roccamonte , “[wjhatever other consideration may be involved,” the entry into a marital-type relationship “is consideration in full measure.” Id. at 393 , 808 A.2d 838 .

2008As we recognized in Roccamonte , “[wjhatever other consideration may be involved,” the entry into a marital-type relationship “is consideration in full measure.” Id. at 393 , 808 A.2d 838 .

2007In our view, the judge’s findings reflect an appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 630 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.2d 308 (1986). 4 We therefore conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed a consecutive sentence on count two.

2007In our view, the judge’s findings reflect an appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 630 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.2d 308 (1986). 4 We therefore conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed a consecutive sentence on count two.

2007In our view, the judge’s findings reflect an appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 630 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.2d 308 (1986). 4 We therefore conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed a consecutive sentence on count two.

2007In our view, the judge’s findings reflect an appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 630 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.2d 308 (1986). 4 We therefore conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed a consecutive sentence on count two.

2007In our view, the judge’s findings reflect an appropriate consideration of the factors enumerated in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 630 , 498 A.2d 1239 (1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1193 , 89 L.Ed.2d 308 (1986). 4 We therefore conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion when he imposed a consecutive sentence on count two.

2006The final step, said the court, is a consideration of the warning as a whole, to determine "if, when read as a whole, the warning conveys a meaning as to the consequences that is unmistakable." Id. at 12 , 607 N.Y.S. 2d 598 , 628 N.E. 2d 1308 .

2006The final step, said the court, is a consideration of the warning as a whole, to determine "if, when read as a whole, the warning conveys a meaning as to the consequences that is unmistakable." Id. at 12 , 607 N.Y.S. 2d 598 , 628 N.E. 2d 1308 .

2006The judge explained that the award was based on a consideration of the factors specified in Rule 5:3-5, Rule 4:42-9, Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233 , 281 A. 2d 273 (1971) and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.

2006The judge explained that the award was based on a consideration of the factors specified in Rule 5:3-5, Rule 4:42-9, Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233 , 281 A. 2d 273 (1971) and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.

2005Id. at 456 , 825 A.2d 1192 (citing Pukowsky, supra, 312 N.J.Super. at 183 , 711 A.2d 398 ).

2005Id. at 456 , 825 A.2d 1192 (citing Pukowsky, supra, 312 N.J.Super. at 183 , 711 A.2d 398 ).