Case law

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.

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.

ROSENFELD v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 2024

However, Defendant has carried its burden to show a non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for the termination because Plaintiff violated clearly established policies against using his personal device during a service … Plaintiff Establishes a Prima Facie Case of Disability Discrimination To state a claim for disability discrimination under the NJLAD, Plaintiff must establish (1) he was disabled, (2) he was qualified to perform his

NANCE v. BONDS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 2024

In addition to asserting that plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proof, defendants also argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. p. 20.) … Despite the close of discovery, plaintiff has failed to identify these 5 As summary judgment will be granted in favor of Gramp, Bonds, and Sheehan, it is unnecessary to address their qualified immunity argument

SOMERSET v. UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2022

“clearly within the scope of § 1915(e)(2)”). … Somerset’s claims were clearly filed far more than two years after his allegedly failed LASIK surgery.

Suarez v. Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders

972 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 1997

Remaining Defendants 7 Section 1983 provides for the imposition of liability on any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of … Additionally, the August 16 entry clearly indicates the medical staff treated plaintiff for his synip toms.

AUSTINO v. CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 14, 2020

of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The following events all clearly occurred before February 4, 2018 so that any claim relating to them is out of time: (1) in 2012, plaintiff

KENNY v. PORRINO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2021

Oct. 4, 2007) (“Plaintiff clearly failed to exhaust administrative remedies where it is not clear such exhaustion would be futile. … Additionally, the claims against the Federal Defendants are barred by sovereign immunity.

BOUTAHLI v. 7-ELEVEN, INC.

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

But the franchise agreement clearly established that “neither the dealership nor [the franchisor] intend[ed] to be the ‘agent or legal representative of the other for any purpose’” and that “the dealership ‘is solely responsible … Just like 7-Eleven, North Bay and the Feil Organization do not qualify as possessors of land.

Rubinson v. Commissioner of Social Security

96 F. Supp. 3d 386 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2015

For all of these reasons, the ALJ determined that the record evidence established that Plaintiff provided “ ‘significant services’ and in return received ‘substantial income,’ ” as required under the first test. … for the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiffs managerial work activities in connection with his rental properties possessed the requisite significance, despite the fact that his functioning as a physical laborer post-injury clearly

GRAVES-DOYLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

The ALJ paid particular attention to Listings 1.04 (Disorders of the Spine), 14.09 (Inflammatory Arthritis), 9.0 (Endocrine Disorders), as well as Section 14 (Immune System Disorders) of the Listings. … Rather, the “ALJ satisfies this standard by ‘clearly evaluating the available medical evidence in the record and then setting forth that evaluation in an opinion, even where the ALJ did not identify or analyze the most

CALLAGHAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2026

Section I of the Policy established the scope of coverage. (ECF No. 19-4 at p. 6). … Because the record did not clearly establish the precise nature of the damages sought, the court held that summary judgment was inappropriate as to that claim. Id. allegedly unauthorized transfer of funds.

Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp.

208 F. Supp. 2d 470 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2002

Robert Kessler, M.D., a physician and professor of urology at the Stanford University Medical Center, for the purpose of establishing specific medical causation — -that is, to establish, to a reasonable degree of medical … evaluating the reliability of the reasoning and methodology employed by nonscientific or technical expert witnesses, the court’s main objective is to “ensure that an expert, whether basing testimony on professional studies, a clearly

Pilgrim Medical Group v. New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners

613 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 10, 1985

To permit otherwise would result in a violation of the right to abortion now clearly guaranteed by decisions of the United States Supreme Court. … Wilchins, M.D., (12/11/84) Hit 8, 19, and states that he and another doctor practicing at plaintiff’s clinic are qualified to perform abortions at eighteen weeks gestational size, at such clinic.

MILLS v. BYCK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2019

Based on his application, Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis. See D.E. 1-2. However, Plaintiff did pay Defendants a $5,000 retainer, which appears to undercut his current claim of indigency. … must review the complaint and dismiss the action if it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Krys v. Aaron

106 F. Supp. 3d 472 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2015

Aaron had “not establish an actual conflict of law between Cayman Islands and New York law.” In re Refco Inc. Secs. Litig., 826 F.Supp.2d at 500-01 . … The business judgment rule therefore “shield[s] internal business decisions from second-guessing by the courts” and immunizes directors for liability “from actions brought by others” with an interest in the business entity

JAMES v. GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2020

This claim was subject to certain defenses, including GTL’s argument that it was entitled to share in the government’s absolute immunity to a CFA claim through the application of “derivative immunity.” … The release at issue here clearly satisfies this standard and is appropriate in light of the circumstances of this case.

Hodges v. Klein

412 F. Supp. 896 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 30, 1976

Moreover, the justifiable reasons for invading an inmate’s privacy are both obvious and easily established. … While such circumstances clearly justify a strip search, it is not clear to this Court that these facts alone justified an anal inspection.

GNOC CORP. v. Aboud

715 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 21, 1989

circumstances are presented: ‘Duty’ is not a rigid formalism according to the standards of a simpler society, immune to the equally compelling needs of the present order; duty must of necessity adjust to the changing social … Such a conclusion is but a logical extension of well established doctrine and pre-existing law, although its application to the facts at bar is novel.

United States v. Menendez

137 F. Supp. 3d 688 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 8, 2015

“But this construction of the indictment makes sense only if § 1001 does not state an offense for a scheme crime—which it clearly does.” United States v. … The Court cannot find, any , cases deciding whether a short-term rental shared with an official qualifies as “personal hospitality,” But under a plain reading of the. statute, Dr.