Case law

Henry v. United States Trucking Corp.

161 F. Supp. 67 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 9, 1958

Jurisdiction over the matters alleged in the complaint resides exclusively in the National Labor Relations Board. … Co. v. Hoboken R. R., etc., Co., supra; Goerke Kirch Co. v. Goerke Kirch Holding Co., supra; Collingswood Hosiery Mills v. American, etc., Workers, supra; Ansco Products Corp. v. T. V. Products Corp., supra.

EME

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2026

Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d at 359; see also Muir v. Wetzel, No. 20-4459, 2020 WL 6799250, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2020). … Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d at 359.

JONES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 2026

See Brown v. Palisades Ins. Co., 7:22-cv-94, ECF No. 1 (S.D.N.Y. January 5, 2022). … Opp.” at 12-13 (citing Brown v. Palisades Ins. Co., 7:22-cv-94, ECF No. 25 (S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2022))).

United States v. Certain Lands Located in Raritan & Woodbridge

144 F. Supp. 206 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 1956

State of Washington v. United States, 9 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 33 , certiorari denied 1954, 348 U.S. 862 , 75 S.Ct. 86 , 99 L.Ed. 679 ; United States v. State of Arkansas, 8 Cir., 1947, 164 F.2d 943 ; United States v. … As stated succinctly in State of California v.

United States v. 60 28-CAPSULE BOTTLES, MORE OR LESS, ETC.

211 F. Supp. 207 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 1962

Fazekas, a physician who is board certified in internal medicine and board qualified in neurology. … The burden upon the Government in a misbranding action is that it prove-its contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence, United States v. 4 Cases * * * Slim-Mint Chewing Gum, 300 F.2d 144, 148 (7th Cir., 1962).

Mersmann v. Continental Airlines

335 F. Supp. 2d 544 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2004

The adjustment board has exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes, and there is limited judicial review of board determinations. … See, e.g., Espinal v.

Untracht v. West Jersey Health System

803 F. Supp. 978 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 1992

Nanavati v. … See In Re Brown, 951 F.2d at 569 .

John H. Mathis Co. v. United States

79 F. Supp. 703 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 1948

In a similar situation, in the matter of United States v. Mason & Hanger Co., 1922, 260 U.S. 323, 325 , 43 S.Ct. 128 , 67 L. … Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U.S. 398 , 24 L.Ed. 1106 ; Martinsburg & P. R. Co. v. March, 114 U.S. 549 , 5 S.Ct. 1035 , 29 L.Ed. 255 ; United States v. Gleason, 175 U.S. 588 , 20 S.Ct, 228 , 44 L.Ed. 284 ; Ripley v.

J.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2025

(ECF No. 267 (Nov. 29, 2024 Op.); ECF No. 268.)2 As recognized in the opinion, plaintiffs’ motions against State Defendants and the Monroe Township Board of Education (the Board)3 did not 1 The procedural history … F.P. v. Clifton Board of Education, Case No. 19–08469, 2020 WL 4530031 (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2020). (Id. pp. 26, 27.)

General Inv. Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

248 F. 303 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 1918

State of New Jersey, etc., v. Hancock, Collector, etc., supra.; Ellerman v. Chicago Junction Rys. & Union Stockyards Co., 49 N. J. Eq. 217, 241, 23 Atl. 287 ; McCauley v. Ridgewood Trust Co., 81 N. J. … Davis v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 258 , 41 Am.

Bimbo v. Burdette Tomlin Memorial Hospital

644 F. Supp. 1033 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 1986

E.G., Spiewak v. Rutherford Board of Education, 90 N.J. 63 , 447 A.2d 140 (1982). … See, e.g., Buono v. Board of Trustees of Teachers Pension and Annuity Fund, 188 N.J. Super. 488 , 457 A.2d 1214 (App.Div.1983).

Gateway Apts. v. MAYOR & TP. COUN. OF NUTLEY TP.

605 F. Supp. 1161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 1985

605 F.Supp. 1161 (1985) GATEWAY APARTMENTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. The MAYOR AND TOWNSHIP COUNCIL OF the TOWNSHIP OF NUTLEY, Township of Nutley, and Rent Leveling Board of the Township of Nutley, Defendants. Civ. A. … State Board of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 668 , 101 S.Ct. 2070, 2083 , 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981); Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 461-63 , 101 S.Ct. 715, 722-23 , 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981); Kotch v.

Green v. Delaware, L. & W. R.

211 F. 774 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 10, 1914

“(4) When you boarded the defendant’s train, what did the plaintiff do?” … J.) 86 Atl. 545 ; Buckeye Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co. (D. C.) 196 Fed. 514, 522 ; Wilson v. New England Navigation Co. (D. C.) 197 Fed. 88, 94 .

Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Bournonville

260 F. 446 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1916

Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros., 240 U. S. 251 , 36 Sup. Ct. 269, 60 L. Ed. 629 . See, also, Westinghouse Co. v. Wagner Electric & Mfg. Co., 225 U. S. 604, 614 , et seq., 32 *448 Sup. Ct. 691, 56 L. … Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 25 , 16 Sup. Ct. 443, 40 L. Ed. 599 ; Clark Thread Co. v. William Clark Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 658, 37 Atl. 599 .

El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf

825 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 2011

Monroe v. … the facts showing that Hackett, Gichure and Brown were personally involved in the alleged wrongs.

TRUSTED TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, LLC. v. GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2019

(“Patriot”), Douglas Cook (“Cook”), Brown & Brown of New Jersey, LLC (“Brown & Brown”), and John F. … Brown & Brown Defendants oppose this appeal. (Docket Item 141.)

LAUGHLIN v. WALDIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 2021

at Board meetings. … V.

Reade Manufacturing Co. v. United States

192 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 1961

See Dunn & McCarthy v. Commissioner, 2 Cir,. 1943, 139 F.2d 242 ; First National Bank of Skowhegan v. Commissioner, 1937, 35 B.T.A. 876 ; Canton Cotton Mills v. … In the Third Circuit in the case of Commissioner v.

Birotte v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

468 F. Supp. 1172 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 1979

In Landy v. … V THE FOURTH COUNT AND THE CBOE RULES In the Fourth Count of the complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants were subject to the Rules of the Chicago Board of Options Exchange and, with regard to plaintiff’s account, did

Coll v. Hyland

411 F. Supp. 905 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 1976

In Schmidt v. … In Doremus v. Farrell, supra, the state statute permitted a Board to dispense with the patient’s presence if it is unnecessary or “would probably be injurious to him.”