Case law

Samaroo v. Samaroo

743 F. Supp. 309 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 1990

The first of these two subsections outlines the information which a domestic relations order must contain: (C) A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this subparagraph only if such order clearly specifies— ( … Though reluctant to establish an all-encompassing rule for “pendent party” jurisdiction, the Court in Aldinger held that to assert such jurisdiction, “a federal court must satisfy itself not only that Art.

YAEGER v. SONG

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2024

She also argues that plaintiff has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against her and that she has qualified immunity for the claim “because there is no clearly established right to dental care to address subjective … Song’s qualified immunity argument.

Singer Management Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram

608 F. Supp. 2d 607 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 2009

The December 29 Order Was Not Clearly Erroneous or Contrary to Law Plaintiffs argue that Judge Salas’s ruling in the December 29 Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be reversed. … The Court in Bell Atlantic abrogated the rule established in Conley v.

JOHNSON-WIGGINS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES/ANCORA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 2022

Remarkably, Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledges that Ancora is immune from Plaintiff’s NJLAD claim. He nonetheless argues that I should not dismiss. … Ancora is immune from Plaintiff’s state law claim. Her Title VII claim is not viable: Plaintiff has not shown adverse action, causation, or pretext.

Cosmas v. American Express Centurion Bank

757 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 2010

Equifax, Inc., 619 F.2d 700, 703-05 (8th Cir.1980) (describing section 1681h(e) in terms of “qualified immunity”); Lawrence v. Trans Union, LLC, 296 F.Supp.2d 582, 590 (E.D.Pa.2003) (same). … For one, a plain reading of the text of section 1681h(e) clearly states that it is applicable only when a plaintiffs claim relates to information “disclosed pursuant to sections 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m ... or based on information

United States v. Kushner

349 F. Supp. 2d 892 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 12, 2005

As the Court shall discuss fully below, the public and media enjoy a qualified right of access to judicial records. … The second source, however, clearly involves substantive and subjective analysis on a case-by-case basis.

HOFFMAN v. WARREN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

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

Michigan Dep’t of State In any event, Defendants have established here that they satisfy each of the Fitchik factors for sovereign immunity. As to the first factor, Mr. … “A prosecutor bears the ‘heavy burden’ of establishing absolute immunity,” and “a prosecutor must show that he or she was functioning as the state’s advocate when performing the action(s) in question.”

Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time Inc.

569 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1983

New Jersey has also enacted a statute granting a qualified privilege to newspaper reports of “official statements issued by police department heads and county prosecutors in investigations in progress or completed by them … A review of the full text of the letter, particularly in light of the complaint and plaintiffs brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, clearly indicates that the “incompleteness” referred to in Schiavone’s letter is

Douglas v. Marino

684 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 1988

It is well established that intentionally placing a prison inmate in fear for his life inflicts suffering so as to amount to unconstitutional punishment, if the threat of physical harm is made to discourage a prisoner from … Outrageous conduct or abuse of official power clearly rises to the level of a § 1983 claim. Davidson, 752 F.2d at 829. It is irrelevant that there may be, as there is here, a post-deprivation remedy in state court.

Pepe v. Rival Co.

85 F. Supp. 2d 349 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 1999

The best qualified individual will be selected. … Plaintiff was qualified but was not even given the opportunity to apply for this position.

Non-Resident Taxpayers Ass'n v. Municipality of Philadelphia

341 F. Supp. 1139 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 1972

Discipline only follows fault; every opportunity is afforded to an employee to contest an alleged just financial obligation or to remedy his default when it has in fact been established. … Moreover, unless such regulations are clearly inconsistent with the purpose of the statute, they have the force and effect of law. Maryland Casualty Co. v.

GRAY v. UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE RUTGERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2021

Under the Eleventh Amendment, state prisons are immune from suit in federal court, absent waiver of that immunity. Baker v. James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr., 425 F. … To state a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), a plaintiff “must allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability, who was precluded from participating

SMITH v. BOROW

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 16, 2022

The Court’s opinion makes clear that Judge Borow was immune from suit because all of his alleged decisions to permit or not permit certain testimony, making factual determinations, and rendering a judgment qualify as “judicial … Plaintiff resubmits evidence this Court has already reviewed and provides nothing new to support or challenge this Court’s determination that Defendants are immune from suit, which is well-established legal precedent.

FALLEN v. MCENROE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 2023

Qualified Immunity Will Be Denied Tied with the probable cause analysis, the Court cannot find that McEnroe and Hadley are entitled to qualified immunity. … “The burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity is on [McEnroe and Hadley].” Reedy, 615 F.3d 197, 223 (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 808 (1982)).

K.J. v. TOWNSHIP OF GALLOWAY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2022

“[T]his provision qualifies the general declaration of immunity in Section 2–1(a).” Turner v. Twp. of Irvington, 63 A.3d 1233, 1239 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2013). … The school district argued that, in order to be stripped of its immunity under § 59:2-1.3(a)(1), the plaintiff needed to establish that the school committed a “willful, wanton or grossly negligent” act in addition to showing

Kroeger v. Stahl

148 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 7, 1957

violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ; that operation of the zoning ordinance amounts to an undue burden on interstate commerce; and that his claimed status as a “public utility” renders him immune … Nor is plaintiff engaged in an extension of an already established or even prospective communications “chain”, within the above-described context.

Thurston v. Cherry Hill Triplex

941 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 2008

To meet the prima facie burden in a disability discrimination action under the NJLAD, an employee must show that: (1) he or she has a disability or is perceived by the employer as disabled; (2) he or she was qualified for … that her employer perceived her as handicapped, and therefore had failed to establish a prima facie case.

Van Meter v. Township of Maplewood

696 F. Supp. 1024 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1988

A section 1983 action may be brought for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 . … The Ordinance clearly applies to “dish antennae ... or satellite receiving station[s].” Ordinance sec. 2.1.

Tellado v. Time-Life Books, Inc.

643 F. Supp. 904 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 1986

If, however, the portrayal functions primarily as a means of commercial exploitation, then such immunity will not be granted. … Another line of cases establishes that defendants use is not devoid of First Amendment protection simply because it is commercial speech. In Bigelow v.

426 Bloomfield Avenue Corp. v. City of Newark

904 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 2, 1995

As such, all of Federal Express’s shipping activities — in the air as well as on the ground — were thereby immunized from California’s intrastate economic regulations. … This clearly was not our intention.” Cong.Rec. H10351 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 1994).