Case law

NAZAROV v. CITY OF BRIGANTINE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2024

re Second, Plaintiffs have failed to establish any intentional treatment by Defendants. … Aug. 12, 2019) (“Given that summary judgment is proper, there being no proof of a constitutional violation, the Court need not address the qualified immunity defense.”); Gentile v. DES, Props., 3:08-CV-2330, 2012 U.S.

PARKER v. NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2020

The Court next held that Defendants failed to meet their burden to establish that Plaintiff was ineligible for the endorsements. … Defendants fail to demonstrate grounds to reconsider the Court’s decision on sovereign immunity for Fulton.

Chavez-Rivas v. Olsen

194 F. Supp. 2d 368 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 2002

petitioners, remains the ultimate decisionmaker as to matters concerning the INS, see 8 U.S.C. § 1103 (a)(1), and is commonly designated a respondent in these cases, even when personal jurisdiction over the immediate custodian clearly … Moreover, adopting a broad notion of who qualifies as a custodian might unnecessarily complicate habeas claims by forcing courts to undertake fact-intensive analyses of venue and forum non conveniens issues. See id.

In re Thompson

191 F. Supp. 545 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 1961

The petitioner’s application for that writ was based upon the contention that the pro *547 visions of the New Jersey statute, for the violation of which the present' petitioner was convicted, “grant immunity to prosecution … The law which I deem applicable to the present pending petition for writ of habeas corpus is clearly and comprehensively restated by Judge Barnes of the Ninth Circuit, in Muhlenbroich v.

JOYNER v. HANSSEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 8, 2021

That document, however, is clearly an amended complaint which reiterates the claims listed in the original complaint and expands upon them. … Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state”).

JC v. Mendham Tp. Bd. of Educ.

29 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 9, 1998

Naturally, much debate has surrounded the determination of what qualifies a party as "prevailing." … In the context of § 1988 claims, the Supreme Court has held that "it seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit such an interlocutory award [of attorneys' fees] only to a party who has established his entitlement

Dole v. Haulaway Inc.

723 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 1989

Quite clearly defendants are liable for liquidated damages for this entire period. … It has not been established that their record keeping now complies with the Act.

Sea Girt Restaurant & Tavern Owners Ass'n v. Borough of Sea Girt

625 F. Supp. 1482 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 1986

Therefore, in order to establish an entitlement to certain procedural protections, plaintiffs first must establish that their interest in a liquor license constitutes a property interest. … Any injury of that magnitude clearly requires that the State demonstrate a compelling interest, served in the least restrictive manner. Id., 546 F.Supp. at 475 .

TUCKER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2023

City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit expanded on these two sources of liability: A government policy or custom can be established in two ways. … Therefore, it is not entitled to qualified immunity. Owen v.

JENNINGS v. EZRICARE, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2024

NJPLA’s Immunity Provision Although product sellers are subject to liability under the NJPLA, the Act includes an immunity provision “to rescue persons it categorized as ‘product sellers … Thus, the Court rejects EzriCare’s claim of immunity at this time. IV.

CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE, INC. v. RUTGERS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2022

Namely, “N.J.S.A. § 18A:61D- 1 obligates Rutgers to require every student to provide proof of certain vaccinations ...N.J.A.C, § 8:57-6.4, allows Rutgers ‘to establish additional requirements for student immunizations … By requiring students to either be vaccinated or qualify for an exemption from the vaccine, Rutgers strictly abided by the terms of the contract.

United States v. Undetermined Quantities of an Article of Drug

709 F. Supp. 511 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 1987

Evans’ uncontradicted affidavit establishes that G & W can satisfy neither of these requirements. … This principle has been recognized by several courts and is clearly the present position of the FDA. See, e.g., United States v. 118/100 Tablet Bottles, 662 F.Supp. 511, 512 (W.D.La. 1987).

Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp. v. Inhabitants of Trenton

227 F. 502 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 1915

The reason for granting it, as well as the context, leads us to the conclusion that it is not limited or qualified by the opening paragraph of section 17, before quoted. … It may be that that body will adhere to the old rate or will establish one that will not be open to the charge of violating the contracts alleged. * * * On the question of contract, as on that of confiscation, it is reasonable

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SANDOZ INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2022

Defendant argues that certain Excerpts of the Transcript qualify as “Highly Confidential Information” under the terms of the Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order. … “Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and 1 Defendant initially filed its motion on September 19, 2022. See ECF No. 77.

SAMRA PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2024

New Jersey law clearly limits those eligible to receive a power of attorney appointment to individuals and banks. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 46:2B-8.1. A healthcare practice is neither. … not established standing to bring any claim related to Patient’s ERISA-governed health plan.

William v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

477 B.R. 533 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 2012

Appellants’ service on BOA of the Chapter 13 confirmation plan and notice of the hearing intending to cram or strip down BOA’s secured lien was clearly deficient. … There is no dispute that BOA qualifies as a insured depository institution. See In re McCumber, 2012 WL 893061 , at *1 (Bkrtcy.D.Alaska March 7, 2012) ("Bank of America is an insured depository institution.”). .

Camden County Beverage Co. v. Blair

46 F.2d 648 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 1930

We are also clearly of opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man’s property by reason of offenses committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal … prosecutor elects to waive an indictment, and to file a civil information against the claimants, — that is, civil in form, — can he by this device take, from the proceeding its criminal aspect and deprive the claimants of their immunities

CLAYTON v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2021

Plaintiff pleads two distinct sets of facts to support the custom claim: First, the complaint lists specific incidents of use of excessive force by the NPD; 7 As to qualified immunity, the analysis has been parallel … Dec. 16, 2021) (discussing appropriate level of specificity for purposes of qualified immunity and following cases that deemed it an unreasonable use of deadly force to shoot at a fleeing vehicle) (citing, e.g., Waterman

PELLECCHIA v. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 2022

A plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Id. … Further, Plaintiff could easily believe, without clearly stating, that Defendants other than the named Defendant(s), are liable for the conduct in a particular paragraph.

MCLAUGHLIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 15, 2025

“[T]he thirty-day time period for removal does not begin to run until the grounds for removal are clearly established.” Von Dell v. Boeing Co., No. 11-786, 2011 WL 5974579, at *1 (D. Del. … Removal was therefore proper within thirty days of that date, when “the grounds for removal” became “clearly established], and Wells Fargo timely filed its Notice of Removal thirty days later.