Case law

Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Sealed Air Corp.

253 F.R.D. 300 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2008

It has not established that Grace and Sealed Air were adversaries. … Plaintiff further contends that DLJ fails to qualify as Sealed Air’s agent.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Ace Gaming, LLC

713 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 2010

Las Vegas Sands’ evidence establishes none of these factors. … Atlantic asserts that "ACE’s assets clearly exceed any potential claim that plaintiffs assert in this action.” (Atlantic’s Reply Brief, p. 3) 34 .

LUSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Moreover, New Jersey has an overriding interest in establishing terms of probation and enforcing FROs issued under the PDVA because the PDVA is intended “to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection … Without such allegations, the Complaint violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it does not contain a short and plain statement clearly alleging which of these defendants were responsible for which

Board of Ed. of Bor. of Chatham v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.

293 F. Supp. 541 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 1968

If we paid the hundred and fifty thousand dollars, we quite clearly would have had a saving on our policy limit of fifty thousand dollars to Lumbermen’s. … The Court of Appeals in Potomac held [p. 427] that: “It is well established that the [law] imposes upon the insurer the duty to exercise diligence, intelligence, good faith, and honest and conscientious fidelity to the common

FREEMAN v. MCDONNELL

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

Plaintiff’s instant motion to amend was clearly filed after the twenty-one-day amendment “as a matter of course” period had expired and he already amended his pleading once. … While Plaintiff has not clearly pled whether it was Hashmi or Unachukwu, or both, who read Dr.

RODRIGUEZ v. SOMERSET COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 2024

However, the Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Somerset County Sheriff’s Office, as the Sheriff’s Office does not qualify as a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Brandon v. … A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing: (1) liability based on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional violation; or (2) personal liability

Garcia-Perez v. United States

579 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 1980

U.S., 528 F.2d 920 (CA 4, 1975), where a procedure was established to order a stay until the government provided immunity to the taxpayer or until all applicable statutes of limitations had run. … As to that question, no objection was raised, and if there were any ground to object, it clearly has been waived.

Willard C. Beach Air Brush Co. v. General Motors Corp.

118 F. Supp. 242 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 1953

This, however, was refused by the Court, not only because the medical certificate submitted was insufficient to establish to the Court’s satisfaction that they were unable to attend and testify, as required, F.R.C.P. 26(d … the release in the corporate name, as well as his own, was not authorized by formal action of the board of directors, they being, in addition to himself, his wife and the stenographer of his lawyer, each holding only a qualifying

Wright v. L-3 Communications Corp.

227 F. Supp. 2d 293 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2002

Second, the parties do not dispute that Wright was qualified for the Director of Business Development for Space Products position that he held prior to his termination. … Third, Wright clearly suffered an adverse employment decision because he was involuntarily terminated on or about April 17, 2000. See Wright Certif. ¶ 5.

Vulcan Pioneers v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF CIV. SERVICE

625 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 1985

Finally, there is the public, which has a right to expect that responsible positions of leadership in the fire departments will be filled expeditiously by persons clearly qualified to supervise and perform the highly important … Nor does the court find the 1984 analysis of the State's test performed by its expert to establish the validity of such test.

ALEXANDER v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2020

The Hearing Panel concluded that the MEC had established a sufficient basis, by a preponderance of the evidence, to suspend and terminate Dr. Alexander’s clinical privileges at HMH. Id. ¶ 232. … Super. at 291 (“Like the federal law, the New Jersey statute provides broad immunity for damages to qualified persons for actions taken as part of a hospital’s peer review process.”).

FALCON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2025

when (i) the ‘specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the’ party seeking the [temporary restraining order] and (ii) … I find that plaintiff fails to make the specific factual showing required to establish immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.

Reap v. Continental Casualty Co.

199 F.R.D. 536 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2001

Plaintiffs have typically depended upon two kinds of circumstantial evidence to establish the existence of a policy, pattern, or practice of intentional discrimination: (1) statistical evidence aimed at establishing the defendant … First, there is no evidence that clerical staff are qualified for positions as officers, managers, and professionals.

W.K. ex rel. W.K v. New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities

974 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 1997

To qualify as a proceeding which is judicial in nature, it must be established that the inquiry "investigates, declares and enforces liabilities as they stand on present or past facts and under laws supposed already to exist … Such a mandatory injunction clearly falls within the Younger analysis, and plaintiffs cite no case law to the contrary.

United States Ex Rel. Glickfeld v. Krendel

136 F. Supp. 276 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 1955

The omission by Congress of any qualifying words • was intended to permit a suit by anyone who furnished labor or material. … Professor Corbin writes: “The payment is not a compromise, as both parties are clearly aware.

First National Bank of Princeton v. United States

136 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1955

The complaint clearly sets forth the .alternative legal theories upon which the plaintiff seeks recovery. Throughout the complaint the allegation is consistently made that the contract between Prof. … To prevail under either one of its theories plaintiff must first establish that there was a sale of patent rights to Pro Phy Lae Tic.

CONSERVE v. CITY OF ORANGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 23, 2022

of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” … Ptaszynski addressed the question of whether a police station (and its officers) qualifies as a place of public accommodation under the NJLAD where plaintiffs requested police intervention at their home by calling 911 and

ALTICE USA, INC. v. NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 10, 2020

This Court (1) treated Altice’s filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction, (2) found that the amended complaint naming all BPU’s board members qualified the case for the Young Exception, and (3) announced its intent … Altice’s request (ECF No. 15) to file an amended complaint, combined with this Court’s order (ECF No. 16) permitting Altice to do so and directing Altice to move for reconsideration, clearly contemplate that the amended

Martinez v. National Broadcasting Co.

877 F. Supp. 219 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1994

In addition, there is evidence in the record that plaintiff repeatedly applied for positions for which he was qualified, and that plaintiff was rejected. … In addition, plaintiff clearly cannot maintain a hostile work environment action based on his mere assumption that the derogatory remarks made about him by Krebs were racial in character.

Wearly v. Federal Trade Commission

462 F. Supp. 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1978

On the record before this court, it has been clearly established that the disputed documents contain proprietary information, that defendants have no right to make any of it public or to provide it to a requester under the … Since venue is clearly proper as to I-R, there is no reason why proper parties like Mr.