volunteer rule in New Jersey

2025The Director’s reliance upon Continental Trailways, Inc. v. Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, 102 N.J. 526 (1986), In re New Jersey State Board of Dentistry, and New Jersey Hospital Association v. Fishman, 283 N.J.

2025Jersey City v. Riker, 38 N.J.L. 225 (Sup. Ct. 1876).

2025The Director’s reliance upon Continental Trailways, Inc. v. Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, 102 N.J. 526 (1986), In re New Jersey State Board of Dentistry, and New Jersey Hospital Association v. Fishman, 283 N.J.

2025Ibid. 13 In re N.J.

2022By definition, an independent contractor has a contractual relationship with the "employer," Est. of Kotsovska., 221 N.J. at 586 , and here the terms of the relationship between the City and the individual plaintiffs include the provisions of the General Orders, including the volunteer requirement.10 10 In their brief on appeal, plaintiffs incongruously argue special police officers are independent contractors who do not have a contractual relationship with the City, and they further illogically claim they have a contractual relationship as long as it does not include the volunteer requirement

2010We are also mindful that the trial court in Gensch did not reach the merits of the Hunterdon defendants' voluntary payment argument. [4] We need not reach the additional rationales offered by plaintiffs for not applying the volunteer rule. [5] Referring to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c), which authorizes the imposition of a "special service charge" when reproducing a requested record involves "an extraordinary expenditure of time and effort." Ibid. [6] Pertinent documents in the legislative history of OPRA are compiled at http://www. njstatelib.org/NJLH/lh2001/ch404.htm. [7] In 2008, numerous bills were

2010We are also mindful that the trial court in Gensch did not reach the merits of the Hunterdon defendants' voluntary payment argument. [4] We need not reach the additional rationales offered by plaintiffs for not applying the volunteer rule. [5] Referring to N.J.S.A. 47:1A-5(c), which authorizes the imposition of a "special service charge" when reproducing a requested record involves "an extraordinary expenditure of time and effort." Ibid. [6] Pertinent documents in the legislative history of OPRA are compiled at http://www. njstatelib.org/NJLH/lh2001/ch404.htm. [7] In 2008, numerous bills were

1991The volunteer rule has been a part of our jurisprudence for almost 100 years and may be stated thusly: "[W]here a party, without mistake of fact, or fraud, duress or extortion, voluntarily pays money on a demand which is not enforcible [ sic ] against him, he cannot recover it back." City of Camden v. Green, 54 N.J.L. 591, 593 , 25 A. 357 (E. & A. 1892).

1991The volunteer rule has been a part of our jurisprudence for almost 100 years and may be stated thusly: "[W]here a party, without mistake of fact, or fraud, duress or extortion, voluntarily pays money on a demand which is not enforcible [ sic ] against him, he cannot recover it back." City of Camden v. Green, 54 N.J.L. 591, 593 , 25 A. 357 (E. & A. 1892).

1986Similar relief was granted in a class action seeking sales tax refund by the Court of Appeal, Second District, State of California in the case of Santa Barbara Optical Co., Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 47 Cal.App .3d 244, 120 Cal.Rptr. 609 (Ct.App.1975), in which the Appellate Court, relied upon the California Supreme Court decision in San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 (Sup.Ct.1974) where the Supreme Court permitted a refund claim on behalf of the unnamed class even though the claim provision of the statute required specific identification of

1986Similar relief was granted in a class action seeking sales tax refund by the Court of Appeal, Second District, State of California in the case of Santa Barbara Optical Co., Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 47 Cal.App .3d 244, 120 Cal.Rptr. 609 (Ct.App.1975), in which the Appellate Court, relied upon the California Supreme Court decision in San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 (Sup.Ct.1974) where the Supreme Court permitted a refund claim on behalf of the unnamed class even though the claim provision of the statute required specific identification of

1986Similar relief was granted in a class action seeking sales tax refund by the Court of Appeal, Second District, State of California in the case of Santa Barbara Optical Co., Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 47 Cal.App .3d 244, 120 Cal.Rptr. 609 (Ct.App.1975), in which the Appellate Court, relied upon the California Supreme Court decision in San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 (Sup.Ct.1974) where the Supreme Court permitted a refund claim on behalf of the unnamed class even though the claim provision of the statute required specific identification of

1983However, the court also stated that: It is well-established that the payment of a tax in order to avoid the loss of the payor’s right to practice his profession or to continue in business renders the payment involuntary and moves it from the ambit of the volunteer rule. [ Id. at 588-589, 423 A.2d 640 ] The court then concluded that in view of the licensing provisions of N.J.S.A. 45:6-13, the dentists were entitled to refunds of fees 4 paid in accordance with the judicially invalidated statute.

1963Meier v. Planer, 107 N.J.