Case law

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.

Dailey v. National Hockey League

780 F. Supp. 262 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1991

Clearly such conflict arises where both courts exercise in rem jurisdiction with respect to the same res. … The two suits at issue here, to the extent they seek monetary relief, clearly fall into the second category.

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 .

STATHUM v. NADROWSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2019

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Reply Br.) A. … Remaining Claims The Court declines to reach Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Defendants

SCOTT v. LOPEZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2022

require courts to review the complaint and sua sponte dismiss claims that are (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … “[F]ailure to establish any element in [a plaintiff's] favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate.” Id.

IZZO v. SOMERSET COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2025

The third requirement is also clearly met, as state law does not appear to bar Plaintiffs claims from being raised in a state forum. See Gonzalez v. … To establish a RICO claim, Plaintiff must allege “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity, plus (5) an injury to business or property,” and (6) the racketeering activity must

Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez

974 F. Supp. 2d 705 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2013

Such action is clearly not in the patient’s medical interests. Thus, the Mathews v. … To prove a violation of Title II, a party must therefore establish: (1) that s/he is a “qualified individual” with a disability; 10 (2) that s/he was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services, programs, or

United States v. Parker

19 F. Supp. 450 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 1937

We replied to the effect that we hoped that the decision would appear clearly in the opinion. At or about 4:30 of the same afternoon we were advised by Mr. … State fully and clearly, the terms of the alleged conspiracy.

United States v. Mayor and Council of City of Hoboken, NJ

29 F.2d 932 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 10, 1928

Constantly certainly, and, we hope, patiently and clearly, we find ourselves explaining why we feel we cannot restrain somebody from doing something. … Of the earlier Presidents, every one who put himself officially on record, Madison alone excepted, avowed the literal view of the ‘general welfare’ clause, qualified to be sure after 1800, first by the doctrine of state consent

United States ex rel. Dickson v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co.

123 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2015

Accordingly, Relator also qualifies as an original source under the post-2010 statute. … prescription drug coverage, or a cost plan offering qualified prescription drug coverage.

KAMDEM-OUAFFO, PHD v. COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY

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

immunity. … App’x at 226 (affirming dismissal of claims against private attorney defendants because “[p]rivate attorneys—like the attorney defendants here—generally do not qualify as state actors”); Angelico v.

Gould Ex Rel. Estate of Gould v. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance

959 F. Supp. 214 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 1997

Liability’s employee benefits plan was established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). … In the “Definitions” section of the plan, “service” is clearly defined as employment with an employer on an active full-time and full-pay basis for at least twenty-eight hours a week.

MCBRIDE v. TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 2020

Plaintiff does not clearly allege facts satisfying any of the Banco elements against Micucci. … Plaintiff’s general allegations might qualify as both an interference claim and a deprivation claim.

Supino v. United States

192 F. Supp. 389 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1961

Since taxpayer clearly qualifies for the exemption afforded by 116(a) (1) in all other respects, the sole question for the Court to determine is whether or not he was a bona fide resident of France for the years in question … With the foregoing criteria in mind, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced upon the trial clearly establishes that taxpayer was a bona fide resident of France for the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953, and thus entitled

Beth Israel Hosp. of Passaic v. Heckler

560 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1983

Turning to the Social Security Act, the Deputy Administrator pointed out that the plaintiff sought reimbursement for services rendered to individuals not otherwise covered by Medicare, in contravention of the clearly established … Finally, the Deputy Administrator found that Hill-Burton free care did not qualify as an allowable interest expense under 42 C.F.R. § 405.419 .

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

593 F. Supp. 1146 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 1984

It is clearly one in which Congress should occupy the field.” Ill Cong.Rec. 13930 (June 16,1965). … Thus, government has frequently established standards in those areas in which a particular industry has failed to establish its own.

Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. National Milling Co.

276 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 1967

There is no quarrel with the principle fixing the liability of the consignee as established in this line of cases. … Requiring double payment is not merely harsh, as mentioned in Fink, supra, it is clearly unconscionable and manifestly inconsistent with any consideration of abstract public interest.

Burt v. Heckler

593 F. Supp. 1125 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 19, 1984

The law that has developed regarding these statutes has established that the phrase prevailing party should not be limited to a victor only after entry of a final judgment following a full trial on the merits. … An hourly rate of $25.00 clearly is not excessive and appears to correspond to the market rate requirements set forth in the statute. NAACP v.

Pinkus v. Reilly

178 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 16, 1959

In other words, the Post Office Department could rely upon the consensus of informed medical judgment to the contrary to establish the falsity of the Pinkus representations. To paraphrase Reilly v. … Clearly, these advertisements by him were intentional. Clearly, since they were contradictory, he knew he was then stating an intentional falsehood to the public.