Case law

NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC v. THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF NORTH HALEDON

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

Smart SMR of N.Y., Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Bd. of Adjustment, 152 N.J. 309, 323 (1998) (quoting Medici v. … V.

United States v. Tully

521 F. Supp. 331 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 1981

In United States v. … See also Weaver v.

Gibson v. Kugler

315 F. Supp. 1003 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 1970

The County Board of Elections offices are in the County Hall of Records located in the center of Newark. … United States v. Manning, 215 F.Supp. 272 (W.D.La.1963); Green v. Board of Elections City N. Y., 259 F.Supp. 290 (S.D.N.Y.1966). The complaint in this cause is dismissed.

The Rosemary

23 F.2d 103 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 13, 1927

J., having on board when seized 400 eases of Scotch whisky hearing the label “Glaseow.” … S. v. Two Automobiles and Five Cases of Whisky (D. C.) 2 F.(2d) 264 .

Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.

558 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 13, 1981

Acme Highway Products Corp. v. D.S. Brown Company, 431 F.2d 1074, 1081 (6th Cir. 1970), cert. den., 401 U.S. 956 , 91 S.Ct. 977 , 28 L.Ed.2d 239 (1971); see also Hinde v. Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado, supra. … validity of the ’007 patent in the proceeding before the Board of Appeals, Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v.

BERGSTEINs v. EMERSON CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2021

Dec. 2, 2016) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 731 A.2d 1212, 1216 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 7, 1999)). … Moreover, under New Jersey law, a “dividend declaration is within [the] discretion of [the] board of directors[,]” Maul v. Kirkman, 637 A.2d 928, 938 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994).

Francois v. Ashcroft

343 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 2004

Petitioner maintains that the Third Circuit in Zubeda v. … Julmiste v. Ashcroft, 212 F.Supp.2d 341, 345 (D.N.J.2002) (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 865-66 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984)); see also Cadet v.

In re Holley

205 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 12, 1962

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200 , 70 S.Ct. 587 , 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950). … In repudiating this notion, it is stated in 3 Wigmore on Evidence, § 897, p. 385 (3d Ed. 1940): “1826, 1934, Putnam J., in Brown v. Bellows 3 [4] Pick. [179], 187, 194 and Whitaker v.

Donoghue v. Behler

429 F. Supp. 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 1977

Board of Junior College, 523 F.2d 569, 577 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 963 , 96 S.Ct. 1748 , 48 L.Ed.2d 208 (1976); Brault v. … See Skehan v. Board of Trustees of Bloomsburg State College, 501 F.2d 31 (3rd Cir. 1974), vacated on other grounds, 421 U.S. 983 , 95 S.Ct. 1986 , 44 L.Ed.2d 474 (1975); Sixth Camden Corp. v.

Radio Corporation of America v. Philco Corporation

275 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 1967

On December 31, 1963, the Patent Office Board of Patent Interferences decided Interference No. 88,472, Tiley (Philco) v. Law (RCA), awarding priority of invention to Tiley. … In Applegate v.

Roberts v. Underwood Typewriter Co.

257 F. 583 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 1919

Moloney v. Cressler (C. C. A. 7) 210 F. 104 , 126 C. C. A. 618 . [2, 3] The plaintiff’s complaint, which on this motion controls (Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205 , 26 L. … Co. v. Bliss (C. C. N. D. Ia.) 144 Fed. 446 ; Chase v. Beech Creek R. Co. (C. C. W. D. Pa.) 144 Fed. 571 ; Manufacturers’ Commercial Co. v. Brown Alaska Co. (C. C. S. D. N. Y.) 48 Fed. 308 ; Stimson v.

United States Ex Rel. Rush v. Ziegele

335 F. Supp. 434 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 1971

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 , 73 S.Ct. 397 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953); United States ex rel. Boyance v. Myers, 372 F.2d 111 (3 Cir. 1967). … Brown v. Allen, supra.

Sprung v. Weinberger

386 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 9, 1974

In Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U. … In Ginsburg v.

Pisciotta v. Ashcroft

311 F. Supp. 2d 445 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 9, 2004

See Ashley v. Ridge, 288 F.Supp.2d 662 (D.N.J.2003); Bezmen v. … Catney v. INS, 178 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir.1999).

United States Ex Rel. Jacques v. Hilton

423 F. Supp. 895 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 1976

(Tr. 5/10/74, at 43) In support of his position petitioner relies upon the case of United States v. Brown, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 190 , 490 F.2d 758 (1974). … While the court in United States v. Brown, supra, reversed a federal conviction on similar grounds, it did not purport to lay down a constitutional rule in doing so.

Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

774 F. Supp. 266 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 1991

Brown v. Walter, 62 F.2d 798 (2d Cir.1933). Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 900-901 (2d Cir.1970). 9 Furthermore, contrary to Mr. … . § 1927 , reprimanding him for violating Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, and referring the matter to the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court); Rubin v.

Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center v. Sullivan

183 F.R.D. 119 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 1998

Neulander, a member of Cooper’s Board of Trustees; Peter E. Driscoll, Chairman of Cooper’s Board of Trustees; and Kevin Hal-pern, Cooper’s Chief Executive Officer. See Novack Deck, Exh. B (Defs. Original Brief, Exh. C). … Public Interest Research Group v.

Estate of Cills v. Kaftan

105 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2000

(James Brown Affidavit at ¶¶ 3-4). … Nazario and Jenkins had received information from Brown that Cills no longer appeared to be a danger to himself, and they confirmed Brown’s assessment after speaking with Cills and observing his improved mood.

Kan Kam Lin v. Rinaldi

361 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 3, 1973

Cheng Fan Kwok v. … In Cheng Fan Kwok v.

Seatrain Lines, Inc. v. Pennsylvania R.

108 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1952

Court docket pending the Board’s action, General American Tank Corp. v. … “After a decision, order, or requirement shall have been made by the Commission, a division, an individual Commissioner, or a board, or after an order recommended by an individual Commissioner or a board shall have become