Case law

Evans v. United Arab Shipping Co.

767 F. Supp. 1284 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 1991

. § 1333 and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 . This court held a nonjury bench trial on March 4-7, 1991. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, William W. … The liberal standards of negligence and legal causation fashioned by the courts in *1292 Jones Act and FELA cases are equally applicable where testimony from medical experts fails to establish anything like a definitive answer

REIMER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 2026

New judicial decisions or interpretations do not qualify as “facts” to be discovered under the statute. Jd. … Absent equitable tolling, Petitioner’s amended motion to vacate sentence remains clearly time barred.

Movers' & Warehousemen's Ass'n of America v. United States

303 F. Supp. 563 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 1969

In such circumstances Commission approval of the modified pooling plan on the basis of a full hearing was clearly warranted. … Moreover, were we to assume that the applicable standard is that advanced by plaintiff, the evidence in the record does not suffice to establish even a probability of an anti-trust violation under § 7 of the Clayton Act.

United States v. Di Gilio

667 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 9, 1987

Defendants, however, contend that the John Di Gilio Group is not alleged to have had the characteristics required to qualify as an enterprise. … the present case, they state their argument as follows: “We contend this ‘gloss’ [imposed by Sedima footnote 14] limits the application of the statute to situations in which the multiple acts of racketeering activity are clearly

Urbach v. Sayles

779 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 1991

Without deciding on the merits of defendants’ motion, this court finds that there is no basis for plaintiff’s assertion that motions to dismiss should be regarded as per se immune to certification. … Sept. 3, 1991) (“[w]hile the projections [of operating revenues] are clearly different from the tale that was being told in [a later report], these differences alone do not bespeak fraud absent some facts suggesting that

Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. v. Tate

962 F. Supp. 608 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 18, 1997

The language there refers to an order requiring interLATA toll dialing parity issued after December 19, 1995, which does not qualify for the grandfather clause and which therefore may only take effect in February 1999 or … Hawaii was also grandfathered, yet its order clearly anticipated a subsequent administrative rulemaking. In re Investigation of the Communications Infrastructure of the State of Hawaii, Dkt.

EDWARDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026

The litigant seeking IFP status must “provide the [Court] with the financial information it need[s] to make a determination as to whether he qualifie[s] for in forma pauperis status.” Freeman v. … Of course, the establishment of subject matter jurisdiction requires discernible allegations and claims, thus its lack in N.J. Parole Board.

GANGI

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 21, 2026

Title Il of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of’ a public entity’s services, programs, or activities … waiver of immunity for suits in state court.

Reid v. Cumberland County

34 F. Supp. 3d 396 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2013

A government policy or custom can be established in two ways. … The official information privilege is a “qualified privilege designed, to prevent the disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement.”

Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Township of East Hanover

630 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2009

Moreover, East Hanover’s new LUZ Code clearly prohibits billboards, compounding the un-redressability. … To qualify under either definition as a billboard, there must be a surface that advertises goods or services not directly related to the site where the sign sits.

Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co.

67 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 1999

The use of unpaid, forced labor during World War II violated clearly established norms of customary international law. … The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed on the ground that the F.R.G. was immune from suit pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 . See id.

Engel Van Lines, Inc. v. United States

374 F. Supp. 1217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1974

. § *1219 307(a), sets out the criteria to be used by the Commission in issuing certificates of public convenience and necessity: “ . . .a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole … Under well established standards promulgated by the Commission, Engel must meet one of two alternative tests before a certificate of public convenience and necessity may be issued to it.

MITCHELL v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2021

For example, Plaintiff does not even clearly allege that Defendants denied him a prescribed course of treatment or otherwise allege or show that the treatment provided violated professional standards of care. … A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing: (1) liability based on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional violation; or (2) personal liability

LAWRENCE v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 2023

In its prior decision, the Court assumed that Lawrence could establish cause to excuse his procedural default of the Davis claim but found that he could not establish actual prejudice because he admitted facts in his plea … The portion of the § 924(c) charge that identifies the predicate crime refers somewhat equivocally to “the Hobbs Act robbery charged in Count One of the indictment” (emphasis added) and, thus, does not clearly identify

Pappas v. Moss

257 F. Supp. 345 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 1966

is ‘plainly insubstantial either because obviously without merit, or ‘because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that … “State court decisions involving fraud and misrepresentation are applicable only indirectly as supplementary aids in establishing standards of diligence.

HOGAN v. FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 2025

The ADA contains an “association provision” that prohibits “excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified … An absolute privilege wholly immunizes the publisher from liability and arises in the “narrow context of statements made in the course of judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings.” Kadetsky v.

Estate of Jennings v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 3d 461 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2015

The allegations in the Complaint clearly implicate the Plan terms. … Although Plaintiffs argue that finding preemption in this case would result in a situation in which "a records keeper or employer with no relationship to an ERISA plan who negligently acted would be immune from liability”

GPS OF NEW JERSEY M.D., P.C. v. AETNA INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 2024

Br. at 18 (“[Defendants’| offer was the [qualifying payment amount], which equated to the median in-network rate.”)). … established legal precedent such as where an arbitrator appreciates the existence of a clearly governing legal principle but decides to ignore or pay no attention to it.”

In re Biogen 755 Patent Litig.

335 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 7, 2018

The Federal Circuit has explained that "[i]t is a claimant's burden to keep the district court clearly apprised of what parts of its claim it wishes to pursue and which parts, if any, it wishes to reserve for another day. … have failed to conclude that [the defendant's] case had been established by clear and convincing evidence." *737 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.

Hart v. United States

84 F. Supp. 912 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 1949

It clearly appears from the undisputed testimony, supported by the documentary evidence, that the decedent expressed an intent to change the beneficiary. … It is argued by the defendant that on May 28, 1943, when the change of 'beneficiary was made, the plaintiff could not qualify as a beneficiary.