Case law

Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.

678 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 1988

, to remove them for cause and to veto any decision made by the board. … Finally, we note that there are numerous indicia, not explicitly set forth in Urbano [v. Board of Managers of New Jersey State Prison, 415 F.2d 247 (3rd Cir. 1969) ] and Blake [v.

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

678 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2009

NJT is governed by a board of directors (the “Board”) which consists of seven members: Defendants Jack Lettiere, Chairman of NJT’s Board; Myron P. … See Sherbrooke Turf, Inc. v. Minnesota Dept. of Transp., 345 F.3d 964 , 970-971 (8th Cir.2003); Gross Seed v.

Freund v. Florio

795 F. Supp. 702 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 1992

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 2406 , 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991); Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). … University of Houston, 565 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.Civ.App. 1978), appeal dismissed, 440 U.S. 952 , 99 S.Ct. 1487 , 59 L.Ed.2d 765 (1979); Elliott v. Board of Trustees, 29 Wash.App. 890 , 631 P.2d 985 (Wash.App.1981); Kubik v.

Wolosoff v. Cable Systems Inc.

93 F.R.D. 314 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 2, 1981

See, e.g., Mesarosh v. U. S., where a decision to order a new trial was announced from the bench before hearing any argument on the merits. … Another example is Aaron v. Cooper.

Daggett v. Kimmelman

617 F. Supp. 1269 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 1985

decree in which the board of education was required to devise a desegregation plan. … See Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools, 611 F.2d 624, 639 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 911 , 100 S.Ct. 2999 , 64 L.Ed.2d 862 (1980).

In re Cendant Corp. Derivative Action Litigation

189 F.R.D. 117 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 1999

Davidge v. … Not All of the CUC Directors Were on Cendant’s Board at the Relevant Time The CUC defendants argue that certain claims against certain directors should be dismissed because they were not on Cendant’s board at the relevant

Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin

16 F. 452 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 1883

The case of Minor v. Mechanics' Bank of Alexandria, 1 Pet. 46, conclusively determines that the third plea is bad. … In this respect it falls short of the case of Minor v. Bank of Alexandria, supra. 2.

Nagler v. Stiles

343 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 1972

In Gordon v. … In Rosario v. Rockefeller, No. 71-C-1573 (E.D.N.Y.

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local 15

242 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 14, 1965

Panza v. Armco Steel Corp., 316 F.2d 69 (3rd Cir. 1963); See 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award, § 147. … See International Association of Machinists, etc. v. Crown Cork and Seal Co., 300 F.2d 127 (3rd Cir. 1962); Transport Workers Union of Phila., Local 234 v.

United States v. The Etta

25 F. Cas. 1025 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 1864

She had a cargo of salt on board. … . & B. 147; Robertson v. Clarke, 1 Bing. 445; Hall v. Franklin Ins. Co., 9 Pick. 466 ; The Tilton [Case No. 14,054]; 3 Kent, Comm. (2d Ed.) 173.

National Westminster Bancorp NJ v. Leone

702 F. Supp. 1132 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 1988

On August 4, 1987, the First Jersey board reviewed the merger agreement and voted unanimously to approve it. … Finally, in Morales v.

Michaels v. Woodland

988 F. Supp. 468 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 1997

Brown v. St. Joseph County, 148 F.R.D. 246 (N.D.Ind.1993) is another case that has rejected an organization’s assertion of automatic, presumptive representation of all employees. … Regardless, the court relied on the decisions in Carter-Herman, 897 F.Supp. 899 , and Brown v. St. Joseph County, 148 F.R.D. 246 , and declined to support the notion of “automatic representation.” Id. at 1317.

Pollak v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC

285 F. Supp. 3d 812 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 17, 2018

Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC , 650 F.3d 993 , 997 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr. , 464 F.3d 450 , 453 (3d Cir. 2006) ). … The Brown decision is in line with this decision.

Fuqua v. Robinson

398 F. Supp. 681 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 1975

An appeal was then filed with the Board of Appeals and Review, Civil Service Commission. … Goodman v. City Products Corp., 425 F.2d 702, 703-04 (6th Cir. 1970). See Genovese v. Shell Oil Co., 488 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1973); Harris v. National Tea Co., 454 F.2d 307 (7th Cir. 1971). See also Kurylas v.

Hackett v. Mulcahy

493 F. Supp. 1329 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 1980

See also Ronson v. … When the defense called Jefferson Brown, the court refused to permit him to testify.

Courtney v. Choplin

195 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2002

(“Appeals Board”) which may then be appealed to the district court. … See Dietsch v.

Local 145, International Ladies Garment Workers' Union v. Fashion Associates, Inc.

596 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 1984

Bechtel Corp. v. … See, e.g., N.L.R.B. v.

In re De Campos

163 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 1958

The same certificate discloses that petitioner was reclassified 1-A (Available for Service) by his Local Board on August 24, 1944, and 4-F (Not Acceptable for Service) on November 8, 1944. … United States v. Kenny, 2 Cir., 1957, 247 F.2d 139 ; Petition of Velasquez, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 139 F.Supp. 790 , affirmed per curiam sub nom. Velasquez v. United States, 2 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 126 ; Jubran v.

Lynch v. JP Stevens & Co., Inc.

758 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1991

(the “17 April 1984 Board Resolution”). 17 April 1984 Board Minutes; Zerrenner Dep. at 106. … .”); Cipriano v. Board of Education, 785 F.2d 51, 56 (2d Cir.1986); Gray v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 792 F.2d 251 , 255 (1st Cir.1986); Patterson v.

TELEBRANDS v. COOPER & DUNHAM LLP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2023

Plaintiffs petitioned for post-grant review (“PGR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Patent Board”) challenging the Patent. Compl. ¶ 17; Boies Compl. ¶ 19. … Gelber, 147 N.J. at 566 (1997); see also Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J. Super. 372, 381 (App.