Case law

United States v. Crispino

586 F. Supp. 1525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 1984

Because a “likely” source is a “qualified” rather than a “definite” showing, relitigation of the underlying evidence is not barred. Id. … Consequently, the government is barred from arguing or trying to establish, for any purpose, that appellant was part of that conspiracy.

ROBINSON v. ORTIZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 7, 2021

The count of the indictment clearly state’s [sic] the offense of possession was committed in the State, a place where federal powers are limited and must contain a nexus to commerce . . . . … Section 2255 contains an explicit provision that permits “[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming . . . that the court was without

Tully v. Scheu

487 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 1980

If the New Jersey appellate process were pursued and if Tully were ultimately able to secure a new hearing, it would not qualify as being within a reasonable time. … This was clearly implicit in the fact that Judge McGann decided to hold evidentiary hearings to determine if the State had violated a plea agreement.

Francis E. Parker Memorial Home, Inc. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC

945 F. Supp. 2d 543 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2013

Plaintiffs’ CFA claim does not fall within an exception to the PLA, but rather clearly falls within its scope.” Id. … Thus, these cases are clearly inapposite here. For. example, in Green v.

SAHLER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 8, 2026

LEGAL STANDARD “Tt is well established that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), reflects a ‘strong federal policy in favor of the resolution of disputes through arbitration.’” Kirleis v. … Although Defendants are not explicitly named in the DRA, Healthy Choice qualifies as the “Worksite Employer” and Creighton, Porricelli, Valenti, and Stephan qualify as “owners, directors, officers, managers, employees

GRANT v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 2021

The Amended Complaint also lacks allegations to establish that these employees were similarly situated to Plaintiff. For example, it acknowledges that Ms. … Here, Plaintiff clearly belongs to a protected class on account of her race, but she has failed to proffer any facts to allege that she was qualified for the position she sought.

HOLLEY v. POMPEO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Holley did not qualify for U.S. citizenship, because there was no evidence that she was adopted by Mr. Holley. (Id.) On December 14, 2020, Ms. Holley filed the instant complaint. … The Third Circuit, however, has clearly signaled that the DJA does not create an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. See Auto–Owners Ins. Co. v.

Hurd v. Hutnik

419 F. Supp. 630 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 1976

Defendants called Marc Gertner, Esquire, an Ohio attorney whom the Court found qualified as an expert in the field of pension plans. … The rights to establish the pension plan, once the first bargaining agreement provided for it, flow out of the trust agreement to the trustees who are charged to establish and thereafter amend the plan.

HUBBARD v. COMCAST CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 3, 2019

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ reasons for terminating him were a pretext for age discrimination because he is more qualified than younger workers who kept their jobs and who had worse sales numbers than him. … As the Third Circuit explained, courts may use a Rule 12(b)(6) standard “without discovery’s delay” if the face of the complaint and documents on which it relies clearly show that a party’s claim is subject to an enforceable

VERIZON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE v. IRIZARRY

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

Irizarry as Defendant’s “surviving spouse for purposes of a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity.” Ud. | 16.) … Plaintiff's predecessor (the Bell Atlantic Qualified Order Team) was provided with a copy of Defendant’s QDRO in 2000.

Gramm v. Bell Atlantic Mgt.

983 F. Supp. 585 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 1997

concluding that he could not have reasonably relied on, at most, a possibly misleading letter from the benefits department calculating his likely future benefits, “especially in the face of a written Plan document that clearly … sets out the requirements to qualify for benefits.”

Vt Investors v. R & D FUNDING CORP.

733 F. Supp. 823 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1990

Once parsed, however, plaintiffs’ claim is clearly untenable. … , in reliance upon the Supreme Court's rejection of a test for "seller” that imposed liability on persons whose actions were merely a "substantial factor” in causing the purchase, the Court held that persons who fail to qualify

MORRISON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2022

A policy is made when a “‘decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action’ issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” Andrews v. … She alleges that “no effort was made to retain the surveillance video,” which she contends “would have clearly shown Defendant Zylkiewicz to be at fault” because “he had hit her broadside,” and that “no findings were issued

MARDIS v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX SERVICE INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 26, 2019

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish personal jurisdiction over KEF, TAYLOR, LMG, and WING. … This provision clearly indicates that a Franchisee may not recruit or hire the employees of Jackson Hewitt or its affiliates.’

COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ASSOCIATES, LLC v. CLINTON TOWNSHIP

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

Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintains that the Watts, Tice Defendants owed it a duty of care because its contractual arrangement with the CTSA qualified as a “public-private partnership” that imposed certain duties … Sept. 30, 2009) (rejecting claims of immunity based on litigation privilege and denying summary judgment due to disputed material underlying facts in support of the privilege claim).

GROSS-QUATRONE v. MIZDOL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2022

As Judge Wettre found, fundamental fairness demands that defendants equally be allowed to inquire into the cause and extent of plaintiff’s complex web of physical and mental symptoms with the assistance of a qualified … Judge Wettre’s decision thoroughly addressed all the factors in considering whether a party’s mental condition is “in controversy” and the movant establishes “good cause” for the examination. Fed. R. Civ.

Inventive Music, Ltd. v. Cohen

564 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 1982

Lubinsky’s will was probated April 3, 1974 and his executors qualified. … Here, plaintiff has the burden of establishing that he was the efficient producing cause in bringing about the sale. De Benedictis v.

KYAM v. HUDSON COUNTY JAIL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2020

Defendants also argue Plaintiff has failed to identify any policy or custom that caused the alleged constitutional violation and that they are otherwise entitled to qualified immunity. … When “a prisoner has received some amount of medical treatment, it is difficult to establish deliberate indifference, because prison officials are afforded considerable latitude in the diagnosis and treatment of

National Football League Properties, Inc. v. New Jersey Giants, Inc.

637 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 8, 1986

But the Giants and NFLP have no control over defendant’s business activities or over the nature and clearly inferior quality of the merchandise sold by defendant and, indeed, the quality of that merchandise does not satisfy … Norman Passman, President of Guideline, has market research experience and has been qualified as an expert in other cases in federal courts to render opinions as to the likelihood of confusion based upon surveys designed

JEFFERSON v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 17, 2022

According to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), [Petitioner’s] criminal history score was 16, so he qualified as a career offender. … Because Petitioner’s claims are clearly without merit for the reasons set forth below, no evidentiary hearing is necessary in this matter. 2.