Case law

C.W. v. NEW PROVIDENCE BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2023

Plaintiff clearly satisfies the first prong of the Wheeler test. … Plaintiff clearly satisfies the second prong of the Wheeler test as well. The Board as much as concedes this.

OAKLYN VILLAS URBAN RENEWAL LLC v. BOROUGH OF OAKLYN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 24, 2023

Plaintiffs argue further that “Defendants and the Borough worked together to delay, complicate, and prevent the proposed sale of Oaklyn Manor to a qualified buyer.” … the United States, or any substantive rights, privileged or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of this State, or whose exercise or enjoyment of those substantive rights, privileges or immunities has been

BUSSINELLI v. TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH

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

Count Three alleged that Defendants conspired against Plaintiffs to deprive them of their privileges and immunities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (Id. ¶ 186.) … Any public or false statement that would qualify as a stigma to their reputation is absent from the Amended Complaint. (See Opp. at 35-37.)

BROWN v. QUINN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2022

accompanying claim of false imprisonment under the Fourth Amendment, “a plaintiff must establish: (1) that [he] was detained; and (2) that the detention was unlawful.” Id. at 682–83. … Finally, as the Court intends to dismiss the Complaint, the Court declines to decide Defendant Quinn’s qualified immunity claims. IV.

White v. Williams

208 F.R.D. 123 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2002

Predominance To establish predominance, Plaintiffs must establish “that questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” … Finally, the proposed class counsel are all qualified and experienced with class action litigation and it *131 does not appear that any of the named Plaintiffs have interests that are antagonistic to other class members.

In re IGI Securities Litigation

122 F.R.D. 451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 21, 1988

II. 23(b)(3) In addition to qualifying under Rule 23(a), a party must satisfy one of the provisions of Rule 23(b). … Second, where "defendants can point to no defense which is clearly dispositive or particular to one small group of plaintiffs ... denial of certification is not required as a matter of law where defendants have particular

DAY v. EZRICARE LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 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.

United States v. Rodriguez

430 F. Supp. 2d 388 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2006

That instruction clearly conveyed the jury’s obligation to carefully consider each count and reach a unanimous verdict. … The Government may only seize a substitute asset “that qualifies for forfeiture under an applicable statute.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(e)(1)(B).

NEW JERSEY PAYPHONE ASS'N v. Town of West New York

130 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 7, 2001

A security deposit of $250 per proposed telephone must be paid to qualify to bid. This would amount to a payment of at least $18,750 assuming the bidder proposes to install the minimum of 75 telephones. … Indeed, the clear bias inherent in such requirements in favor of larger, established pay telephone providers clearly would thwart the intent of the Telecommunications Act to displace entrenched telecommunications monopolies

CALABRESE v. TIERNEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2024

Second, Defendant contends that he has qualified immunity for his actions and thus cannot be held liable. … immunity. 1A IV.

United States Ex Rel. PCC Construction, Inc. v. Star Insurance

90 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2000

The issue of whether PCC qualifies as a “subcontractor” under the Miller Act is governed by federal law. See F.D. Rich Co., Inc. v. United States ex rel. … (See generally Agreement) Thus focusing solely upon the language in the Agreement, it would appear that PCC qualifies as a subcontractor under the Miller Act.

Papianni v. INTERN. ASS'N OF B., S. & OI WORKERS

622 F. Supp. 1559 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 1985

to which they are clearly entitled. … And, before Judge Meanor, they were successful in establishing that the terms of the Plumbers Local Consent Decree did not provide cause for the local's failure to effect the transfers.

NICHOLSON v. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2020

for material adversity, the United States Supreme Court has commented that “it is important to separate significant from trivial harms,” further stating “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize … To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must establish that “(1) he is disabled, (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform essential functions of his job with

NeoRx Corp. v. Immunomedics, Inc.

877 F. Supp. 202 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1994

Genentech, Inc., 666 F.Supp. 1379,1396 (N.D.Cal.1987) (interpreting the statute as immunizing “any use of a patented invention so long as some aspect of that use is reasonably related to FDA testing” would defy “the plain … PX 90 does not clearly indicate an intent or plan to defraud the FDA.

GITTENS

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

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any claim which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. … That Plaintiff filed grievances, reviewed and answered by persons not clearly specified, is not sufficient to support an inference of sufficient discriminatory animus.

Ahlert v. Hasbro, Inc.

325 F. Supp. 2d 509 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2004

On this basis, although Plaintiffs business is based in Connecticut and the Water Rat originated in Oklahoma, New Jersey clearly has the strongest connection to the case. … Plaintiff’s Water Rat does not qualify as a trade secret under New Jersey’s common law definition, but it may under the UTSA.

ESTATE OF FRANK P. LAGANO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2023

She also found that dismissal was appropriate on sovereign and qualified immunity grounds. (See D.E. 27, 42.) … However, it fails to establish that Mordaga’s comment was the “but for” cause of Lagano’s death.

Shahmoon Ind. Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Amer.

263 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1966

But it is only when the arbitrator clearly goes beyond the scope of the submission that the courts will interfere. … Shahmoon’s understanding that company policy was involved is clearly indicated by plaintiff's *17 exhibits 2, 6 and 8. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v.

OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS v. GREWAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2020

Lightfoot, however, the Supreme Court more clearly defined the parameters of the State’s powers over its subdivisions. 364 U.S. 339 (1960). … The Directive is clearly not field preempted by the INA.

Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. v. United States

314 F. Supp. 197 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 9, 1970

Manhattan, with a transportation facility, pursuant to an annual contract, under which rates were payable weekly, with a faster, more reliable, more comfortable, more convenient and more personalized means of transportation, clearly … At the hearing before this Court, it was represented that Monarch was currently operating 19 car pools. . 49 U.S.C. § 307 (a) “* * * [A] certificate shall he issued to any qualified application therefor, authorizing the whole