Case law

DRISCOLL v. TROPICANA ATLANTIC CITY CORP.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 8, 2022

P. 12(b)(6) and/or to dismiss any defendant who is immune from suit.”). … The Third Circuit echoes that for a harm to qualify as an actual or imminent injury, the harm must be distinct and personal to the plaintiff. Brown v.

DRESKIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2026

These assertions do not establish a Free Exercise Clause violation. … RLUIPA’s legislative history likewise reflects that the statute was not intended to provide religious organizations with immunity from zoning regulations. See 146 Cong. Rec. S7774-01, S7777, 2000 WL 1079346.

Telfair v. Tandy

797 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2011

Indeed, it is long established that a court should “accept as true all of the [factual] allegations in the complaint and reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the … Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 , the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provided the courts in this Circuit with detailed and careful guidance as to what kind of allegations qualify as pleadings sufficient to pass

WADE v. MILLS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2021

Sept. 6, 2016) (“It is clear...that a violation of those statutes would not qualify as a constitutional violation sufficient to support a claim raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or its state … “By its terms, of course, the statute creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere.” City of Oklahoma City v.

Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly

155 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 10, 2001

A decision enforcing such a neutral ordinance is immune from any constitutional infirmity on the ground that it constitutes viewpoint discrimination, so long as the facially neutral provision is not applied in a manner that … Avoiding an entanglement with religion clearly concerned the Borough Council.

ARORA v. BARRETTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 15, 2019

For removal to be proper under § 1331, the removed claims must arise from a “right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Concepcion v. CFG Health Sys. … This type of jurisdiction is clearly not applicable here. “A case arises under title 11 ifit invokes a substantive right provided by title 11.” /d.

TRUSTCASH HOLDINGS, INC. v. Moss

668 F. Supp. 2d 650 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 12, 2009

See also Pinter, 486 U.S. at 644 , 108 S.Ct. 2063 (“The purchase requirement clearly confines § 12 liability to those situations in which a sale has taken place.”). … Clearly, there is no better indication than that as to the need for injunctive relief as prayed for by Plaintiffs in the [Complaint].” (PI. Opp. at 4.)

RAMOS v. MAIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2021

A plaintiff may establish supervisory liability under § 1983 by showing “liability based on an establishment of policies, practices, or customs that directly caused the constitutional violation [or] personal liability based … “It is not enough to establish that a party is acutely upset by reason of the incident.

CARATINI v. POWELL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2025

App’x 84, 87 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding that the denial of prisoner grievances does not establish personal involvement). … Excessive Force Claims (Counts VI and XVI) The Retaliation Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s excessive force claims because there is no law clearly establishing

ROSADO v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 2022

A criminal defendant bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to § 2255 relief. See United States v. Davies, 394 F.3d 182, 189 (3d Cir. 2005). … In considering a motion to vacate a defendant’s sentence, “the court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” United States v.

HEINE v. TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2019

A litigant’s pro se status likewise does not relieve him or her of the obligation to “clearly and specifically” identify which claims pertain to which defendants. Pushkin v. … To establish municipal liability the plaintiff must: (i) demonstrate the existence of an unlawful policy or custom; (ii) that she suffered a deprivation of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution

WHITE v. DAVIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2021

From the outset, there is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent regarding whether expert testimony on the “ultimate issue” violates Due Process. … The Appellate Division’s denial of Petitioner’s severance claim does not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

DAVIS v. SLAUGHTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 2019

He contends that these events additionally violated his rights under the New Jersey Constitution and the statutorily established rights of mental patients. (See id. {fj 116-125.) … This attempt to hold them liable merely based on their supervisory authority clearly relies, at least implicitly, on the doctrine of respondeat superior. See Munoz v. City of Union City, 481 F.

Costantino v. City of Atlantic City

152 F. Supp. 3d 311 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 10, 2015

However, these facts do not establish an unreasonable burden. … This quantification is not necessary since the case law already establishes what evidence is necessary to establish liability.

Salovaara v. Jackson National Life Insurance

66 F. Supp. 2d 593 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 1999

Case law clearly establishes that a corporation does not have a fiduciary relationship with its debt security holders, as with its shareholders. See Lorenz, swpra. … The present litigation is clearly related to Lazard’s services in negotiating the Sale of the Debt Securities to Jackson.

In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation

297 F.R.D. 136 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 1, 2013

The commonality requirement is therefore clearly satisfied. See In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. … well qualified and experienced class action attorneys who have been involved in similar ... litigation around the country.”

MCCULLOUGH v. UFCW LOCAL 152 RETAIL MEAT PENSION FUND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2019

The use of “if and when” and a period in subsections (a), (b), and (c) clearly denotes that each condition is a separate and sufficient basis for termination. … The Court begins by noting an obvious principle: the requirements of the SSA to qualify for disability and the requirements to qualify for a DRP under the Plan are different.

Southern New Jersey Newspapers, Inc. v. State

542 F. Supp. 173 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1982

Abdication of the obligation to decide cases can be justified under this doctrine only in the exceptional circumstances where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing … In conclusion, defendants have failed to establish that N.J.S.A. 27:7A-13 and its application to plaintiffs’ honor boxes sufficiently further the asserted state interests.

HOHSFIELD

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 2026

As such, Plaintiff must sufficiently establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over his Complaint. 1. … Clearly, based on the allegations before the Court, Plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies or obtained a final decision from the Commissioner prior to filing this action.

LY BERDITCHEV CORP. v. TRUSS COSMETICS CORP.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 2023

Although Truss insists that the complaint “clearly shows that the actions taken by Truss were not specific to” LYB, that is far from clear. (Mot. 18-19.) … “To establish defamation under New Jersey law, a plaintiff must show [that] the defendant (1) made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) communicated the statement to a third party, and (3) had