Case law

New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. PPG Industries, Inc.

16 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 1998

NJTA does not, of course, explain how its alleged status as the State exonerates it from the liability clearly imposed upon it as a PRP under CERCLA. … That theory is clearly inapplicable to the facts of the instant case.

LYAK v. CITY OF HACKENSACK

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2024

[causes] deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … Date: May 1S , 2024 “Thus, the Court need not address Defendants’ claim of qualified immunity.

BRUNETTA v. EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2023

In consideration of the foregoing principles, the Third Circuit recently summarized the elements required to establish New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine as follows: “(1) the claims against the … Here, these conditions are clearly satisfied; the entire controversy doctrine applies to preclude Plaintiff’s federal claims.

Hm Ex Rel. Bm v. Haddon Heights Bd. of Educ.

822 F. Supp. 2d 439 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2011

Another canon of statutory construction is that words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. See Dewalt v. Sullivan, 963 F.2d 27, 30 (3d Cir.1992). … “An appropriate IEP must contain statements concerning a disabled child’s level of functioning, set forth measurable annual achievement goals, describe the services to be provided, and establish objective criteria for evaluating

Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Brewster Finishing Co.

113 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 1953

The patent, however, clearly shows that the prime achievement claimed is the attainment of durable relief patterns. … Detailed expert testimony and exhibits of microscopic photographs of fibers which had been soaked with resin failed to clearly establish to the court’s satisfaction whether or not this distinction apparent in the printed

HE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2021

a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). … Second, it is unclear whether NYC-RM qualifies as a “place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a). In addition, damages are not available under this statute. Roy v. U-Haul, No.

BRUMFIELD v. ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

Even assuming Plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case—which, again, they clearly cannot—the Court finds that Defendants have articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions. … ” to limit eligibility to qualified bidders based on statutory criteria.

Slater v. Skyhawk Transportation, Inc.

187 F.R.D. 185 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 1999

Clearly, the discovery rule does not apply in this case. In an attempt to breathe life back into his moribund claim against S.D. … In sum, I have determined that under the law of Virginia, Michigan, and New Jersey, Young does qualify as a “co-employee” of Slater.

Schwartz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

639 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2009

On May 22, 2006, Schwartz reserved a room at the Hilton Athens Hotel — which qualified as a category 3 property — from May 29, 2006 to June 1, 2006. Compl. ¶ 5; Leonardis Cert. Ex. C. … Steele, 816 P.2d 586, 590 (Okla.Civ.App.1991) (“[A] travel agent ... ha[s] a duty to discover and disclose to [the traveler] material information which is reasonably obtainable unless the information is so clearly obvious

Ecolab, Inc. v. Amerikem Laboratories, Inc.

98 F. Supp. 2d 569 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 23, 2000

Lentsch was qualified to conduct the tests. Accordingly, they satisfy Daubert and Paoli, and may be considered on the merits. 30 2. … The other elements of claim 1 are clearly defined and require specific amounts of clearly identifiable substances, or are undisputed to exist in Envirochem's products. 5 .

United States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co.

627 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 2009

PRISQUE clearly qualifies for the 4-level adjustment under Subsection (b)(1)(B) for his Count 27 conviction. … We find, and the parties do not dispute, that the CWA offenses and the corresponding Count 1 conspiracy objective, Objective A, clearly qualify for grouping under Section 3D1.2(d). (See, e.g., Davidson I at 50.)

Davis v. Rutgers Casualty Insurance

964 F. Supp. 560 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 1997

Plaintiff has established each of the above elements of a prima facie case of discrimination. … The circumstances of this case clearly warrant immediate reinstatement, as plaintiff Davis remains fully ready, willing and able to resume his duties as a claims examiner.

ABDUL-AZIZ v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 18, 2020

The Court also granted qualified immunity to Defendants in their individual capacities on the Free Exercise claims regarding daily halal meals, but permitted § 1983 and RLUIPA claims regarding daily halal meals to proceed … The threshold question in a First Amendment Free Exercise and a RLUIPA claim is whether the prison’s challenged policy or practice has its prior opinion, the Court granted qualified immunity to the individual State Defendants

Baeder v. Heckler

592 F. Supp. 1489 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 1984

It has been well established, of course, that such regulations must be upheld if they are “reasonably related” to the purposes of the enabling legislation. Mourning v. … It is well established, however, that such “medical” judgments by an AU contrary to professional medical opinion are simply invalid. See, e.g., Smith v.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. United States Gypsum Co.

828 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 21, 1993

Cohen 888 F.2d 1006, 1011 (4th Cir.1989) ("while ... it is not necessary to establish detrimental reliance by the victim in order to make out a violation of the federal mail fraud statute, such reliance is necessary to establish … That case was addressing an argument that for public policy reasons a manufacturer of a particular product is immune from liability.

In Re Establishment Inspection Of: Wedgewood Village Pharmacy, Inc.

270 F. Supp. 2d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2003

The Colonnade-Biswelll exception was qualified somewhat in Barlow’s . … For example, section 355, establishing the “new drugs” requirements, specifically includes an exemption for “drugs intended solely for investiga-tional use by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to investigate

DOMINO v. ESSEX

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 2021

To state a prima facie case of discrimination under the NJLAD, Plaintiff must plead that: “(1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4 … d) Violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (Count 7) Under Count 7, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the NJCRA, for a deprivation of Plaintiff’s “equal protection rights, privileges, and/or immunities

Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc. v. Philadelphia Electric Co.

722 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 24, 1989

Such an outstanding burden is clearly inappropriate and a danger to our economic system.”) … it; (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks the immunity from liability; and (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity.

TINSLEY v. YATES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 30, 2019

Federal law is clearly established for the purposes of the statute where it is clearly expressed in “only the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of the opinions of the United States Supreme Court. See Woods v. … Neither state court unreasonably applied any clearly established federal law in denying Petitioner’s appeals and instead applied well-settled state law in reaching these decisions.

Philmar Jewelers, Inc. v. Cirkinyan (In Re Cirkinyan)

192 B.R. 643 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1996

Once the rule is established in a particular case, all others who follow are on notice and may fairly be held to it, even when its application prohibits the presentation of the merits of a claim. … Had debtor’s counsel objected, creditor’s counsel could have gone to the post office and sent copies off that evening — and that would clearly have constituted timely and effective service.