Case law

Clark v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

289 F.R.D. 144 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 2013

Thus, the testimony does not qualify as hearsay, since it is not an out of court statement and was subject to examination. … Drogell clearly establishes her suspicion in a call on May 27, 2003 of her premium increases.

Lechich v. Rinaldi

246 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 1965

The establishment is described as a first class gourmet restaurant with excellent reputation for the quality of its food and service. … “Please be informed that inquiry has disclosed that the beneficiary is not employed in your establishment as an Executive Chef.

Cahill v. City of New Brunswick

99 F. Supp. 2d 464 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 23, 2000

Darden decision reached only the definition of “employee” under ERISA — and expressly held that the comparatively expansive definition under the FLSA “stretches the meaning of ‘employee’ to cover some parties who might not qualify … Although such prospective loss of wages may cause hardship to the plaintiff officers, it is clearly the type of injury which is readily calculated and remedied after the fact by monetary damages.

Coastal Outdoor Advertising Group, LLC v. Township of Union

676 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2009

Moreover, that the developer would still be required to “secure financing, qualify for federal subsidies, and carry through with construction,” did not trouble the Court. Id. at 261 , 97 S.Ct. 555 . … Coastal’s claims for damages are clearly not moot under Third Circuit law. See Khodara Environ., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 196 (3d.

VAUGHN v. RICCI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 2024

“Contrary to clearly established Federal law” means the state court applied a rule that contradicted the governing law set forth in U.S. … Federal law is clearly established for these purposes 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.

Student Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Fritzsche, Dodge & Olcott, Inc.

579 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1984

Quite clearly Congress envisioned public participation in protecting the environment not merely at the level of a citizen’s lawsuit. … Even assuming that plaintiffs were the catalyst for the EPA’s revitalization, however, this, in itself, does not establish neglect.

In re International Power Securities Corp.

112 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1953

These requests are clearly excessive. … It was obvious from his testimony that he possessed neither the competence nor the experience necessary to qualify him as an expert witness.

Professional Insurance Management v. Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Companies

246 B.R. 47 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 29, 2000

Four days later, Ohio Casualty issued the “official form letter” establishing the procedures for renewals. … The language clearly establishes that subsection (e) applies if the termination is a result of gross and willful misconduct or failure to pay over funds; the causal relationship is a necessary predicate to subsection (e)’

TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D, INC. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS OF NEW YORK, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2024

We asked Teva about a claim to an improved steering wheel, even though the steering wheel clearly is intended for use in a car. … Accordingly, both the relevant statutory provisions and our case law clearly establish that what a patent claims and what infringes a claim are distinct concepts.

VETTER v. RUSTOLEUM CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2023

While Defendant argues Morningstar is not qualified because she has no post-graduate degree and has not specifically worked with wood stains, the Court does not view the requisite experience to properly qualify as an expert … For this reason, “[t]he central requirement of the Act is that manufacturers of hazardous products provide cautionary labels clearly indicating the hazards and providing consumers with directions for use.”

SAKOLSKY v. GENIE INDUSTRIES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2021

And “[w]hile no system is totally immune to defeat, . . . steps can be taken to increase this difficulty for most of the typical user population.” (Id. at 9). … The AWP-30S is clearly a complex instrumentality.

Kocienski v. City of Bayonne

757 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 22, 1991

plaintiff has attempted to state a separate cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , it is pertinent to note that Section 1983 does not create substantive rights, but only provides a remedy for a deprivation of rights established … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

Casper v. Paine Webber Group, Inc.

787 F. Supp. 1480 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 1992

As was established in Shearin v. E.F. … Clearly, the Amended Complaint was added in response to the initial motion to dismiss.

ALEXANDER v. RUSSO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2024

“To establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. … Pa, July 14, 2014) (affirming validity of Fourth Amendment claim for cell search of pretrial detainee, but granting qualified immunity); Santana v. Berks Cnty, Jail System, 2020 WL 3574544, at *6 (E.D.

FAIELLA v. SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 2019

To establish an intentional tort claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the “employer [] knowingly expose[d] [an] employee to a substantial certainty of injury,” and (2) “the resulting … that Live Nation acted with certain knowledge that Plaintiff would be injured and that he is clearly unable to do.”

POWELL v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 3, 2024

The Agreement sorts qualifying Settlement Class Members into two groups: (1) those who can produce proof that they incurred a qualifying repair cost prior to the close of the claims period and contemporaneous photographs … Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established the adequacy of counsel.

JOSHI v. PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP LLC

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

Indeed, the Court finds that Plaintiff clearly alleges that the differential treatment she received was based on religion. … To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must show: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and

Neuner v. C.G. Realty Capital Ventures-I, L.P. (In Re Sharps Run Associates, L.P.)

157 B.R. 766 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1993

Tindol was clearly such a case. … The Third Circuit "has not clearly adopted either rule to the exclusion of the other.” Thompson v. Johnson & Johnson Management Info.

Jersey City Redevelopment Authority v. PRG Industries

655 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 17, 1987

Because mud was removed from the Garfield Avenue property while PPG owned it from 1954-1963, plaintiff submits, “it was clearly foreseeable that waste mud remaining at the Garfield Avenue site after its transfer to Clif Associates … The fortuity that Clif transferred the waste to Ninth Street immunizes PPG, the generator, from CERCLA liability.

DEEJAIZ LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2024

Having found that Plaintiffs’ substantive and procedural due process claims fail, the Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue of qualified immunity at this time. See Hickox v. Christie, 205 F. … Supp. 3d 579, 589 (D.N.J. 2016) (stating that for a qualified immunity analysis, the court must first “determine whether the facts, and inferences drawn therefrom, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establish