Case law

IANNUZZELLI v. ALLIANCE HC II LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 8, 2022

that: (1) Defendants should be collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues; (2) the PREP Act does not preempt state law negligence claims; (3) there is no significant federal issue; and (4) Defendants do not qualify … § 247d-6d(c)(1)(B), which clearly indicates the intent to separate negligence from willful-misconduct claims.

United States v. Manzo

851 F. Supp. 2d 797 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 17, 2012

Based on these facts, the Indictment alleges that Defendant knowingly and intentionally traveled in interstate commerce with intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment … Likewise, the only influence discernible, from the facts alleged in Defendant’s Indictment, which Defendant possessed in these matters were clearly those derived from his activities as a private citizen attempting to gain

RIZAS v. DEJOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2023

For her disparate-treatment claims, Plaintiff must establish that (1) she is a member of a protected class, i.e., that she is African American and older than the age of forty; (2) she was qualified for the position at issue … To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Plaintiff must demonstrate that “(1) [he or she] is over forty, (2) is qualified for the position in question, (3) suffered from an adverse employment decision,

T. I. McCormack Trucking Co. v. United States

251 F. Supp. 526 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1966

The appropriate dimensions of this Court’s scrutiny in reviewing Commission Orders is well established. … This assertion that inconsistency is beyond our purview must be qualified, for it challenges the basic philosophy of judicial review for administrative agencies.

CUEVAS v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2021

Instead, municipal courts are “established, maintained, and directed solely by the municipality.” N.J.S.A. 2B:12–1. … (Id. at 3-6 (discussing, inter alia, the Municipal Court’s placement in the state judicial system and issues of immunity, judicial independence, and control).)

United States v. Sandlass

34 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 1940

The defendant has established the fact that the physical use of the right of way to the extent of forty feet has never existed. … The government as conceded by defendant cannot be penalized for its inactivity, and that immunity remains intact. The contention that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law has not been pressed.

Slick Airways, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc.

107 F. Supp. 199 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 1951

It was unable to show a conspiracy to establish a monopoly. … A contention to that effect is clearly out of harmony with the fundamental purposes of the act, and specifically with the prozñsion of section 22 authorizing the Board to investigate any violation of the act upon complaint

Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Security

651 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2009

The ALJ rejected Plaintiffs argument that she qualified for this exception: Although Ms. Pierce contends that she was eligible for her pension prior to July 1983, the documentary evidence clearly establishes that Ms. … To establish that she was eligible to receive such a pension, Plaintiff was required to prove that before July 1983, she “me[t] all the requirements for payment except that [she was] ... working or [had] not applied.”

HUNTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (e)(2)(B); and WHEREAS a litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit,” Hurst v. … App'x 133, 134 (3d Cir. 2016), and “bears the burden ‘to provide the Court with the financial information it needs to make a determination as to whether [they] qualify for IFP status.” Gray v.

FERGUSON v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2020

s/Esther Salas__________________ Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. 6 Defendant also argues that he “is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not violate clearly … Amended Complaint is not amendable to a qualified immunity analysis.

N.A.M.I. (National Alliance of Mentally Ill of Essex) v. Essex County Board of Freeholders

91 F. Supp. 2d 781 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2000

In order to establish Article III standing: “[A] litigant first must clearly demonstrate that he has suffered an ‘injury in fact.’ That injury ... must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense. … Additionally, PAMII expressly provides for advocacy of patients’ rights under § 10805, through state systems established under § 10803.

PUE v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF LABOR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 1, 2023

'° Likewise, NJDOL is an arm of New Jersey as well, and thus it too qualifies for sovereign immunity. Hogg's v. New Jersey, 352 F. … Here, the Amended Complaint does not allege facts to establish that there is diversity in this case.

DEAN v. LENART

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2022

These claims are barred by judicial immunity. “It is a well-settled principle of law that judges are generally ‘immune from a suit for money damages.’” Figueroa v. … Defendant Haines’ rulings on Plaintiff’s motion to suppress and motion for reconsideration qualify as “judicial acts” because ruling on motions is a function normally performed by judges

PICKETT v. BROWN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 2022

Third, Klavens argues that even if she is not entitled to prosecutorial immunity, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because she is entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 12-15. … Thus, Plaintiff’s allegations as to Klavens are clearly actions taken while in court and related to plea bargaining.

United States v. Daniels

10 F.R.D. 225 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 1950

It clearly appears upon a reading of the affidavits that the factual statements contained therein were based upon the observations and personal knowledge of the affiants, experienced investigators of the Alcohol Tax Unit. … The evidence must be of sufficient weight to establish “probable cause;” it is not necessary, however, that the evidence be of sufficient weight to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

BUNTING v. NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2020

Accordingly, New Jersey state agencies “established in the Executive Branch of State Government” qualify for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, “regardless of the relief sought,” unless an exception to the … Defendant DHSS is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because it is a New Jersey state agency established by the executive branch. See e.g., Ong v.

Spencer v. Kugler

326 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 1971

Jersey and sue on their own behalf and under Rule 23(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all other Black Americans similarly situated who attend the public schools of New Jersey, *1237 which were established … [at p. 11, 91 S.Ct. at p. 1274] “Green [held] that school authorities are ‘clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination

Somet Technologies LLC v. Kevin D. Jarvis in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2026

Sovereign Immunity Sovereign immunity “immunizes from suit in federal court both non-consenting states and those entities that are so intertwined with them as to render them ‘ … and summarily determine an entity qualifies for sovereign immunity if state law establishes the entity as “an administrative agency without existence apart from the [state].”

Danvers Motor Co., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.

186 F. Supp. 2d 530 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2002

Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that Ford was aware of the likelihood that several dealers would not qualify under the BOC Program. … Standing The elements of constitutional standing are well established: Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.

Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, NJ v. Kugler

342 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 29, 1972

Thus, the physicians clearly have standing. … The recent restatement of the Botsford principle in the context of a Fourth Amendment ease clearly establishes that the principle is very much alive and is not limited to tort actions. . 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.Ct. 625 , 67 L.Ed