Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersnjd

4,333 results

1.20s

  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., et al.

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 13, 2026

    activity to lose its cloak of immunity.” … In both AbbVie and Wellbutrin, the Third Circuit has clearly and unequivocally declined to apply the “serial petitioning” standard to Hatch-Waxman conduct.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Schuylkill Stone Corp. v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance

    735 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 17, 2010

    Contractual claims of poor workmanship [do] not constitute the active malfunction needed to establish coverage under the policy. … The alleged damage in this case does not result from Schuylkill’s alleged failure to live-up to standards for which it bargained and established itself.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Maddox v. City of Newark

    50 F. Supp. 3d 606 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2014

    Some of these, such as the alleged duty to evaluate fairly her “ability and merit,” or her length of service, are clearly within the scope of the CBA. … Because I find that Maddox has not provided sufficient evidentiary support for her constitutional claims, I do not reach the Newark Defendants' qualified immunity argument, or the issue of the City’s municipal liability for

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Cataldo v. Moses

    361 F. Supp. 2d 420 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 2004

    Thus, a magistrate judge’s adjudication of a non-dispositive motion will be set aside only if the order is found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Cipollone v. … Dept. of Conservation & Economic Development, 55 N.J. 534 , 264 A.2d 34 (1970), "which abrogated total governmental immunity from tort liability.” Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 335 , 537 A.2d 652 (1988).

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Galbraith v. Lenape Regional High School District

    964 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 16, 1997

    Therefore, if: the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground (or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion … In order to prevail on these claims, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position which she sought; and (3) the employer continued to seek to fill the position

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Afran v. McGreevey

    336 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 2004

    The state of being destitute of an incumbent, or a proper or legally qualified officer. … As he stated in his speech, he clearly intends to hold office until November 15, 2004.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • County of Hudson v. Janiszewski

    520 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2007

    In so presenting, the non-moving party must offer specific facts that establish a genuine issue of material fact, not just “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. … “To establish a section 1983 civil rights claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under state law and that the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges or immunities

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • DeJoseph v. Continental Airlines, Inc.

    18 F. Supp. 3d 595 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2014

    Now, the qualifier “whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise” applies to the entire provision. See Montreal Convention Art. 29. … to checked baggage or goods; Article 19 established liability caused by delay.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • THE ESTATE OF EDWARD C. GANDY, JR. v. CITY OF MILLVILLE

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2023

    New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act The New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act (“NJCIA”) limits the negligence liability of nonprofit hospitals to $250,000. N.J. STAT ANN. § 2A:53A-8. … However, Plaintiffs do not clearly identify the basis for these claims and instead leave this Court to divine their meaning.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • SZEMPLE v. RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

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

    Additionally, it is worth noting that this same immunity applies against these three defendants on Szemple’s state law claims as “a state retains sovereign immunity for all state law … force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • RIOS v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2020

    To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show she (1) “belongs to a protected class; (2) []she was qualified for the position; (3) []she was subject to an adverse employment action 5 Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims appear … (See D.E. 1 ¶¶ 118-25.)17 To establish a § 1983 claim for discrimination, “the complaint must allege facts that would establish that the plaintiff is ‘(1) a member of a protected class; (2) similarly situated to members

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Moore v. DeBiase

    766 F. Supp. 1311 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1991

    The amendment would ... retain the opportunity for removal in the one situation in which it seems clearly desirable. … The amended provision [of § 1441(c) ] would establish a basis for removal that would avoid the need to decide whether there is pendent jurisdiction.”

    Cited 45 timesPublished
  • BARNES

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 2026

    . § 1915A and dismiss any claim that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … Furthermore, Plaintiff does not allege facts that would, if proven, clearly show that the four named Defendants were aware of the conditions, had the ability to transfer Plaintiff or correct the conditions, and

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • DOBSON v. WARDEN

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

    “The burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164. … Dobson is able to retain representation and establish that Mr.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • FOSTER v. JET AVIATION FLIGHT SERVICES, INC.

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 19, 2021

    Thus, “[i]f a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.” … Defendants argue that the 7 To state a prima facie claim of age discrimination, a plaintiff must establish: (1) he was over forty at the time in question; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) adverse action was taken

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • KIRKLAND v. STATE

    District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 2023

    P. 12(b)(6) and/or dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)- (iii). … IFP Application Plaintiff qualifies for permission to proceed IFP.

    Cited 0 timesUnknown
  • Krzewinski v. Kugler

    338 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 1972

    Whatever this Court’s attitude might be, urban communities clearly choose to put firemen and police in the same class. … But until that application is made, the controversy over N.J.S.A. 40:47-3 is clearly not ripe for adjudication.

    Cited 31 timesPublished
  • Larison v. City of Trenton

    180 F.R.D. 261 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 5, 1998

    If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, *264 then denial of leave to amend is improper.” Weight et al., supra § 1487, at 637-42. … Since the New Jersey Tort Claims Act provides immunity for acts of actual malice or willful misconduct committed by its employees, the Trenton Police Department cannot be held liable for these acts on the part of its employees

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Leon v. Chrysler Motors Corporation

    358 F. Supp. 877 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 1973

    Annandale Golf Club, 4 Cal.2d 28 , 47 P.2d 470 (1935). 13 The purpose of the PAA and the GIDAA is clearly stated in the by-laws, Article II, Section 2.1, quoted heretofor. … No rules of compensation could well be provided and established for such a contingency.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.

    District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2022

    Takeda invoked the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, see id. at *9, which extends First Amendment protection and immunity from antitrust liability to “[t]hose who petition [the] government for redress,” Pro. Real Est. … “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning,” and it “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.”

    Cited 0 timesUnknown

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.