Case law

Wood v. Main

789 F. Supp. 2d 519 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2011

It is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme] Court.” Id. … “Because our eases give no clear answer to the question presented, let alone one in [Petitioner’s] favor, it cannot be said that the state court unreasonably] appli[ed] clearly established Federal law.” Wright v.

MAJERSKA v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 12, 2021

Accordingly, New Jersey state agencies “established in the Executive Branch of State Government” are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, “regardless of the relief sought,” unless an exception to … A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

Mulder v. PCS Health Systems, Inc.

216 F.R.D. 307 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 2003

If Mulder establishes PCS’s fiduciary status with respect to the plans administered by Oxford under the Commercial Contract, then Mulder can further attempt to establish the alleged breach of PCS’s fiduciary duties on a class-wide … The court must find that the representative plaintiffs counsel is qualified. See Barnes v. American Tobacco, 161 F.3d 127, 141 (3d Cir.1998).

Democratic National Committee v. Republican National Committee

671 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 2009

Moreover, it is well-established that the First Amendment applies only to state actions. Cent. Hardware Co. v. … The Court noted that, although the challenges were clearly merit less, they still might result in the disenfranchisement of qualified voters: [I]t is the procedural effect of Eaton’s challenges that raises the issues here

MORALES v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 2022

The Marshal Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the § 1983 claims and that Plaintiff cannot sue federal actors under § 1983 or the NJCRA. … immunity.

Empire Box Corp. v. Willard Sulzberger Motor Co.

104 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 1952

The course of conduct subsequently pursued by the parties is clearly consistent with their obvious intent to establish an interstate carrier service under the mere guise of a lease. … at Stroudsburg above the established máximums.

Pension Fund-Mid Jersey Trucking Industry-Local 701 v. Omni Funding Group

731 F. Supp. 161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 1990

Pru-Bache further argues that, even if it were a fiduciary, it acted in accordance with investment objectives established by Mr. Higgins, and clearly informed him of the potential risks. … This provision clearly is designed to prevent fiduciaries from acting in concert to breach one of the fiduciary’s duties.

NAHAS v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2023

immunity. … “Because the [FTCA] constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act’s established procedures have been strictly construed.” Livera v.

United States v. Weingold

844 F. Supp. 1560 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 1994

McCarthy, showing that the application qualifies for emergency consideration and should not be heard as an ordinary motion. … The solicitations must be read as a whole; isolated passages cannot provide immunity from all of the circumstantial evidence indicative of an intent to deceive.

RUFFIN v. CASTANO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2020

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that she: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) suffered an adverse employment action

BARNES v. COUNTY OF MERCER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2023

Moving Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct towards Plaintiff was objectively reasonable, 7. … Ann. § 59:1-1, et seq., or in the alternative, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the limitations and defenses established therein; 10. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of N.J. Stat.

Alpha Painting & Construction Co. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania

208 F. Supp. 3d 607 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 2016

These sections, when fairly read both independently and in context of the bid package as a whole, clearly address instances in which the bidder commits a mathematical error of some kind. … DRPA did not refute the evidence that Alpha is qualified and capable of performing the work required of the Phase II project.

J.Q. v. Washington Township School District

92 F. Supp. 3d 241 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2015

Although Plaintiffs do not assert claims under the IDEA, Defendant nevertheless contends that the IDEA’S exhaustion requirement applies because Plaintiffs seek relief which is available under the IDEA, as established by the … Such claims clearly relate to Defendant’s obligation to provide a FAPE.

Hite v. Lush Internet Inc.

244 F. Supp. 3d 444 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2017

The TCCWNA does not “recognize any new consumer rights but merely impose[s] an obligation on sellers to acknowledge clearly established consumer rights.” Shelton v. … established right.

Zinberg v. Washington Bancorp, Inc.

138 F.R.D. 397 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 8, 1990

Plaintiff has clearly established that the proposed class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable. … Plaintiffs counsel is qualified and experienced. In determining whether an action will be vigorously prosecuted, the decisions have stressed the skill and experience of counsel. Lewis v.

Verizon New Jersey, Inc. v. Ntegrity Telecontent Services, Inc.

219 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2002

It contends that the antitrust laws were established to address plaintiffs’ behavior. See id. … Although Ntegrity claims that the cancellation notices and billings it received were “illegal,” the Counterclaim clearly establishes that those circumstances were created by the parties in the course of their negotiations

GRAY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 8, 2024

It is well-established that “the phrase ‘service, program, or activity’ under Title II and the phrase “‘program or activity’” under Section 504 are “extremely broad in scope and include[] anything a public entity does.” … Durham, 82 F.4th at 228-29; however, sovereign immunity does not bar suit against state entities under the Rehabilitation Act.

Windsor Card Shops, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.

957 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 1997

Both individuals and corporations can qualify as consumers if they fit the definition. See id., 515 A.2d at 248 . … Even if Windsor were to qualify as a franchise, see N.J.S.A. 56:10-3(a), plaintiffs fail to satisfy all of the NJFPA requirements.

Taylor v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INC.

669 F. Supp. 2d 501 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 4, 2009

Prima Facie Case Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. … Although the PIP did not mention those clients by name, it clearly set as two of Plaintiffs objectives closing new business and acquiring higher value added business.

New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. State of New Jersey

653 F. Supp. 1453 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 1987

Regardless of whether the foregoing provisions contemplated protection of the public as a primary concern, these provisions are clearly duplicative of the federal provisions. … The allegation of an additional purpose for this regulatory scheme does not render it immune from preemption. Hughey, 774 F.2d at 595 .