Case law

Laganella v. Braen (In Re Braen)

94 B.R. 35 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 24, 1989

Sitting as an appellate tribunal, this Court’s authority is limited to setting aside fact findings which are clearly erroneous. Bankruptcy Rule 8013. … Clearly, an integral *40 part of any dischargeability proceeding is the standard of proof required for a creditor to demonstrate a particular debt is non-dischargeable.

Kiareldeen v. Reno

92 F. Supp. 2d 403 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2000

District Director, 491 F.2d 573 (5th Cir.1974), established the constitutionality of the use of secret evidence. … When the government’s legal position clearly offends established precedent, however, its position cannot be said to be “substantially justified.” Heckler, 756 F.2d at 961-62 .

CORTICO v. TRANSPORTES AEREOS PORTUGESE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 2025

To qualify for the intentional wrong exception, a plaintiff must satisfy the two-pronged test articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Millison. See 501 A.2d at 513-14. … safety guard or device establishes an “intentional wrong” within the meaning of the WCA); Mabee v.

Noa v. Keyser

519 F. Supp. 2d 481 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2007

Chan was qualified to serve the Committee in this capacity, as he has experience “representing employers, including casinos, in establishing and operating 401 (k) Plans,” and “Pension Plans” are one of his specific areas … The Court finds that this clearly constitutes the type of advice that Mr. Chan was hired to provide. While the decision whether to approve the forced sale of the Employer Stock was the Committee's alone, Mr.

Gelineau v. New York University Hospital

375 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 1974

Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States. … Analysis under the International Shoe test clearly shows that New York University Hospital does not have the minimal contacts necessary to subject it to New Jersey jurisdiction.

Artway v. Scheidemantel

671 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 1987

The fact that the defendant satisfied the requirements of those cases does not immunize her from claims that she denied Artway constitutional due process regarding a determination not discussed by those opinions. … This Court clearly has authority to enter summary judgment against the moving party, even if her opponent has not moved. 6 Moore’s Fed.Prac., para. 56.12 (2d Ed.1976); Morrissey v.

Kindig v. Gooberman

149 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 17, 2001

More specifically, because the legislature did not intend the statute to be applied literally and strictly, in each case the court is “required to assess the facts against the clearly defined elements to determine whether … In Galik, the court held that the initial, unsworn, unfiled expert report was supported by a supplemental, later-filed report and together both reports established that by a reasonable probability a meritorious claim existed

L.L. v. Evesham Township Board of Education

141 F. Supp. 3d 288 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2015

The framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. … A district court may conclude on a motion for summary judgment that a “response [is] not ‘clearly unreasonable’ as a matter of law.” Id. at 649 , 119 S.Ct. 1661 .

Matter of Emerson Radio Corp.

173 B.R. 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 1994

Additionally, the Provisional Liquidator contends that Emerson, by virtue of its reorganization, no longer qualifies as a “debt- or” insofar as the application of Rule 1014(b) is concerned. … Clearly, the interest of justice is best effected if that decision is assayed by the court which is most, indeed intimately, familiar with the history of the chapter 11 case.

GRAHAM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 2022

Eleventh Amendment Immunity Absent a clear waiver by a state of its Eleventh-Amendment immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear … established constitutionally protected activity . . . .”

CUSTIN v. WIRTHS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2020

Personal Liability and Qualified Immunity Because Custin has failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact with respect to his Due Process claim, I do not reach ancillary issues, such as the State … Defendants’ potential personal liability, or qualified immunity.

THE INNISFREE FOUNDATION, Inc. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 2023

Amendment Immunity. … panel established under § 300.167; and [m]ake those findings and decisions available to the public.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(d).

Alston v. Atlantic Electric Co.

962 F. Supp. 616 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 22, 1997

ERISA covers employee plans that qualify as welfare benefit plans, pension benefit plans, or both. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (3). … Although severance benefits are not specifically mentioned in § 1002(1), courts have determined that most, but not all, severance packages qualify as ERISA plans. See Schonholz v.

Herring v. Prince Foods-Canning Division

611 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 12, 1985

Such an employee is not in need of the protections established in Pierce , because he already has these protections, and more. … It further provides, however: "if such employee shall cease to be qualified to perform the duties of his employment, he shall not be entitled to such restoration and compensation." 2 . But see footnote 3, infra. 3 .

Polizzi Meats, Inc. v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

931 F. Supp. 328 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1996

Clearly, PMI has alleged “malicious” behavior by Aetna in its complaint. Complaint, Second Count. … Furthermore, not all witnesses who offer opinion testimony at trial must qualify as experts.

NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance

926 F. Supp. 446 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 1996

Clearly, therefore, the duty to defend is broader than the insurer’s obligation to indemnify. … Just as graffiti undoubtedly qualifies as property damage, so must the lead paint damage at issue here.

MITCHELL v. HUDSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2024

It is, of course, possible that the evidence will contradict Plaintiff’s allegations or establish that the use of pepper spray was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. … Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (“Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . . including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.”).

VAMVAS v. CUCCINIELLO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2024

factual allegations of Defendants’ improper issuance of the Complaint-Warrant”, Defendants contend that the “sum and substance of these allegations are subsumed within a lack of probable cause allegation, even if not so clearly … not substitute for lack of probable cause as the prerequisite for establishing a false arrest claim under the Fourth Amendment.”

DARBY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2022

P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). … It is well established that the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (“NJTCA”), N.J. STAT.

Waterfront Commission v. Construction & Marine Equipment Co.

928 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 18, 1996

Mainly, the supply of waterfront labor would be regulated by a longshoremen’s register. 2 This register would include “all qualified longshoremen eligible.” N.J.S.A. § 32:23-27. … These centers were to be established and maintained by the Commission. 3 .