Case law

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

577 F. Supp. 1029 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 1982

As EEOC insists, it is not a “pension plan” as that term has been defined by both WPDA and ERISA, but as EEOC overlooks, it is clearly a “welfare plan” as defined in both statutes. … Evans, 431 U.S. 553 , 97 S.Ct. 1885 , 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977) established that § 703(h) on its face immunizes all bona fide seniority systems, with no distinction between those adopted before or after its effective date.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue

707 F. Supp. 2d 520 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2010

Id. *534 The Court turned to the issue of how to define the qualified population. … Wright uses to define “qualified population” are based on the category of firefighter.

HEATROK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 2026

Correspondence Plaintiff filed with his complaint, however, more clearly explains why Plaintiff was not scheduled to leave the RHU until late May. … App’x 112, 114 (3d Cir. 2017) (“it is well-established that prisoners have no constitutional right to placement in any particular prison, custody classification, or housing assignment”).

Exxon Corp. v. Federal Energy Administration

417 F. Supp. 516 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 1975

The court felt that that rationale seems to suggest, as the FEA points out, that the CEP cannot qualify as an allocation program simply because it does not require the physical transfer of crude oil among refiners. … Hence, the CEP is clearly an allocation program since it achieves the same result that actual transfers of crude oil would have. Slip Opinion at 16. See also Cities Service Co. v.

United States ex rel. Silver v. Omnicare, Inc.

222 F. Supp. 3d 391 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2016

] to prevail, [that party] must ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of [every] element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ ” Cooper v. … Particularly when the ultimate inquiry is jurisdictional in nature (i.e., Silver bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction), this deficiency matters.

Yocham v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

736 F. Supp. 2d 875 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2010

Both the district court and Court of Appeals held that the fraud-on-the-FDA exception to the general statutory immunity was preempted by federal law, but that the exception was severable and the general statutory immunity … Thus, concern about “an extraneous pull on the scheme established by Congress” is sufficient to find preemption. Buckman, 531 U.S. at 353 , 121 S.Ct. 1012 .

Sepulveda v. United States

69 F. Supp. 2d 633 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 1999

Petitioner has the burden of establishing any claim asserted in the Petition. See United States v. Abbott, 975 F.Supp. 703, 705 (E.D.Pa.1997). … The Third Circuit has clearly stated its preference that such claims generally be addressed in the first instance by the district court under a § 2255 motion, rather than on direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v.

Lasser v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

146 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 13, 2001

Jurisdiction is established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 . … But even Walsh had previously conceded that a greater than 50% chance of a heart attack would qualify as a disability.

THE HUDSON RIVER WATERFRONT CONSERVANCY OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2025

to the River Establishments. … Plaintiff’s state law claim under the Public Trust Doctrine; and (ii) Plaintiff’s claims against NJDEP are barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

New Jersey Hospital Ass'n v. United States

23 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 1998

This clearly is not the ease in the matter before this Court. … Such a result is clearly inappropriate, and the Court finds that this step of the analysis is not satisfied.

United States v. Baskerville

491 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2007

Thus, both factual scenarios presented by the government on this motion may still qualify the Defendant for a death sentence. IV. … Significantly, in § 3591, the term "offense” is clearly distinguished from the term “act.”

Vargas v. Calabrese

634 F. Supp. 910 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 14, 1986

If future developments in the case suggest a need for subclasses they can be established at a later date. 3. … It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is comfortable to the standard established, by the State itself.

Ohoud Establishment for Trade & Contracts v. Tri-State Contracting & Trading Corp.

523 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 1981

If there is an indication that the goods themselves were defective at the time of delivery to the carrier, then the carrier is statutorily immune from liability. … Such a demarcation has been established by both the state law within this district and the accumulated discussions on the limitations of consequential commercial damages. As the court in Rickards v.

Jarvis v. a & M RECORDS

827 F. Supp. 282 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 1993

If it really were true that for infringement to follow a listener must have to confuse one work for the other, a work could be immune from infringement so long as the infringing work reaches a substantially different audience … The amount of profits must then be apportioned so that plaintiff receives only those profits clearly related to the infringing work.

United States v. an Article of Drug, Etc., Acnotabs

207 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1962

Kelter, a well-qualified internist, also reported success, in lesser degree, in the treatment of acne patients with Acnotabs. … Parenthetically, it may be mentioned. that, after the Claimant raised the specific defense of immunity from the second seizure in its brief filed after trial, Libelant, in a reply brief, annexed a copy of a finding of fact

THE SOCIETY HOUSE, LLC v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 15, 2023

The ADA states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such 6 The Court also need not consider the other exceptions to sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff’s ADA claim. … For example, a disparate impact claim typically is “demonstrated by statistics, and a prima facie case may be established where gross statistical disparities can be shown.” Oxford Invs., L.P. v.

Nj Dept. Hum. Serv. v. SEC. US Health & Hum.

748 F. Supp. 1120 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1990

Decision No. 648 was not controlling, the Board asserted, because the HCFA direct-indirect policy had not been clearly expressed at the time No. 648 was decided. [2] (Tr. 6). … The description of changes for the applicable sections of the 1986 revisions to the State Medicaid Manual clearly states that the purpose of the changes was to "clarify" the funding policy for MMIS expenditures.

Chandoke v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

843 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 1994

However, “a distinctive physiognomy is not essential to qualify for § 1981 protection." Id. 3 . Chandoke has testified that his last name "could sound as a British name. It’s not a typical Indian name." … In such a case, evidence of an accent would clearly support a racial discrimination claim. 7 . Defendant favorably compares E.E.O.C. v.

Container Manufacturing Inc. v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.

870 F. Supp. 1225 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 1994

Jennings "in the minds of key industry people” do not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Liotta v. … The court in Dairy Stores , however, clearly extended its holding to non-media defendants.

In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

18 F. Supp. 3d 560 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 24, 2014

The opinion clearly did at least one thing. … But such a reading would far too greatly constrict parties’ power to settle, a power the Actavis court clearly meant to keep intact.