Case law

System Operations, Inc. v. Scientific Games Development Corp.

414 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 1976

Statements to the effect that ticket agents in Omaha were “ripping off” the public by breaking the ticket were clearly false, for plaintiff established that there were no problems with the Omaha instant lottery. … This qualified privilege is brought about in these circumstances because of the strong public interest in the security of lottery tickets. W. Prosser, Law of Torts, 924 (4th Ed. 1971).

BLACKMON v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2024

As a threshold matter, a court must “first decide what constitutes ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.’” Lockyer v. … A federal habeas court making an unreasonable application inquiry should ask whether the state court's application of clearly established federal law was “objectively unreasonable.” See Williams v.

MCGUIRE v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2021

The state courts’ adjudication of this claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … Here. the state court's adjudication of this claim is not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

Under Rule 12(c) “‘judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” … The pieces ultimately come together to form a coherent whole that clearly establishes a $1 million aggregate liquor hazard limit, a limit which caps Aspen’s per-occurrence and per-Subscriber liquor hazard coverage obligations

Canale v. Yegen

782 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1992

The Plan was established in September, 1976 by Yegen Associates (“Associates”), a subsidiary of Holdings, and sponsorship was transferred to Holdings in or around 1981. … such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly

McMorrow v. Schweiker

561 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 21, 1982

That section sets out a number of tests or standards which, if met, establish a claimant as a “widow”. These are: ... … The sampling of information, summarized above, clearly shows substantial evidence on which a reasonable mind could rationally conclude that the “other evidence” of a ceremonial marriage lacked credence.

In Re Intelligroup Securities Litigation

468 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 20, 2006

A case involving a security traded at NASDAQ, such as Intelligroup’s common stock, qualifies for the fraud-on-the-market presumption. See Cammer v. … In that event, the true first sentence of Company A's press release qualifies as a curative component, while the second sentence qualifies as an erroneous one.

DALTON v. SAINT BARNABAS MEDICAL CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 2023

Specifically, a “qualified reader” for individuals having eye disabilities, a “qualified notetaker[,]” interpreters, “real-time captioning; written materials; or a printed script of a stock speech” to individuals having … Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, Plaintiff is a “qualified individual” under 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) because Plaintiff’s TBI disability may qualify as a “physical or mental impairment which for such individual

TIGHE v. ARCONIC INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2021

As the Court explains infra, the record clearly establishes that the Handbook prior to the reorganization continued to apply to Plaintiff following reorganization. … All time off work for a qualifying serious health condition will be counted against your available FMLA entitlement.” Castronovo Aff. Ex.

OLADOJA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2025

The doctrine “recognize[s] that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control’” and that … Then, the plaintiff must point to “provisions establishing a specific time frame” for adjudicating visa applications. Id.

PASTAVALAVA v. NIELSEN

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

To qualify for naturalization under INA 316, you must demonstrate that you meet all the requirements for 8 This finding contradicts Plaintiff’s contention that USCIS fully … century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune

K.G. v. OWL CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2023

Ultimately, there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact” if a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case.” … As such, “plaintiff clearly was exposed to the ‘enhanced hazard’ and fell within the ‘zone of risk’ created through defendants’ employment of [the employee] and the dangerous condition that existed at the [the employee’

GENTRY v. CHUBB

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 2022

Here, Defendants have failed to clearly establish the futility of Plaintiff’s claims. a. … Absent further guidance from Defendants as to why Plaintiff’s contract claims are clearly futile, Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive and do not establish futility.

AMOS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 8, 2025

Next, plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s RFC assessment fails to clearly account for the disability rating made by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). (Id. pp. 21–27.) … “An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Id.

DONOVAN-DRAPER v. BALLY'S PARK PLACE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 2023

Co., 176 N.J. 366, 370–71, 823 A.2d 769, 772 (2003) (“The immunity provided in N.J.S.A. 34:15–8 states that an employee’s exclusive remedy for an accident that arises out of and during the course of employment is workers … On this issue, Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should be denied because Bally’s “maintenance” of the sidewalk does not establish that Bally’s had “exclusive control” of the sidewalk sufficient to establish compensability

KOGAN, L.A.C. v. BECERRA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 2023

The Court found that Kogan “ha[d] failed to establish that any of the exceptions to the APA’s limitation on supplementing the record appl[ied].” … First, . . . plaintiff is not otherwise qualified to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, and federal health care programs because he was properly subject to a mandatory exclusion . . . .

NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. SUNRUN INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 2024

Thus, this provision explains clearly and unequivocally that any dispute arising from the PPA will be determined by binding arbitration before one arbitrator. … Moreover, although the PPA (and the included arbitration clause) may qualify as an adhesion contract because it was created on a take it or leave it basis, the Court agrees with Defendants that this fact alone is

Emri v. Evesham Township Board of Education

327 F. Supp. 2d 463 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2004

Emri filed a motion to dismiss the remaining counts, arguing that the Board had not established that each established conduct unbecoming a teacher. (Id.) … Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574-75 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), which these racially derogatory statements clearly were not. 4 .

Lo Bosco v. Kure Engineering Ltd.

891 F. Supp. 1020 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 1995

This qualifies easily as a joint venture as it is defined in the authorities cited above. … Therefore, the Court finds that, even if plaintiff establishes the existence of a joint venture, the equities of the situation would not warrant an award under a breach of fiduciary duty theory.

GAYLES v. HILLSIDE BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

From their acts and omissions, Plaintiff avers a deprivation of his rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Section 1983. (Id. ¶ 93.) … established at the time of such illicit actions and were violated by Defendants.”