Case law

Ronson v. Talesnick

33 F. Supp. 2d 347 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 19, 1999

Subsequently, GBT determined that the IRS could find that the Investments were not qualifying investments and, as a result, that the IRS may decide not to recognize the losses from the Investments reported on Plaintiffs’ … Clearly, New Jersey has a compelling state interest in regulating the practice of its accountants. On the other hand, New York has no interest in regulating the practice of licensed New Jersey accountants.

MOZ-AGUILAR v. United States

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 7, 2022

Section 2255 provides, in relevant part, as follows: A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the … Because Petitioner’s claims are clearly without merit for the reasons set forth below, no evidentiary hearing is necessary in this matter. 2.

RASKAS v. LATTICE, INC.

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

Assessment of Plaintiff’s FLSA claim The Third Circuit has explained that the “‘FLSA establishes federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees that cannot be … As noted above, see supra note 8, to qualify as exempt, an employee must earn at least $455 a week, which amounts to $23,660 a year.

L.M. ex rel. H.M. v. Evesham Township Board of Education

256 F. Supp. 2d 290 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2003

This language serves to qualify the nonpublic school referenced in the prior clause, making clear that any private school placement suggested by the child study team must be nonsectarian in nature. … Using the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v.

Buchholz v. Victor Printing, Inc.

877 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2012

Zive, 182 N.J. at 454 , 867 A.2d 1133 ; Swider, 134 F.Supp.2d at 622-23 (Plaintiff only needs to show that he had the “education and experience necessary to qualify for the position he held.”). … If employers have a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination which actually forms the basis for their motivation to terminate, there should be no hesitation to clearly state that reason to the terminated employee

Matter of Bevill, Bresler & Schulman Asset

67 B.R. 557 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 23, 1986

There is nothing in the record to establish that SPCSC is or is not a "clearing corporation." … The record clearly reflects that they acquired the securities for value in good faith.

BEAMAN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 28, 2024

Count I clearly alleges a theory of recovery based on the fact that an unauthorized transaction is an “error” under Regulation E. … In opposition, Plaintiffs assert all of the Class Representatives’ allegations are sufficient to establish that they satisfied the notice requirements for reporting qualifying errors. (ECF No. 56 at 9–10.)

SWAIN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 9, 2024

At Step Three, Judge Damille determined that Tyler did not have “an impairment or combination of impairments” that qualified under the Administration’s listed impairments. (id. … For Step Two, the claimant must establish that they suffer from a “severe .. . impairment” or “combination of impairments.” Jd. § 404.1520(a)(4)(h).

Warrington 611 Associates v. Aetna Life Insurance

705 F. Supp. 229 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 1989

As a condition of its consent, however, Aetna would require the borrower to compensate or “immunize” Aetna for the economic loss that it would sustain as a result of the prepayment. … Of course, the Note did not establish a notice provision for a refinancing before the eleventh year because it prohibited refinancing during that period.

United States v. Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers

581 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 1984

This is patently false and clearly unconvincing. … not necessarily establish the other.” 452 U.S. at 583 , 101 S.Ct. at 2528 .

KUMAR v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2021

June 16, 2009) (“In determining whether a plaintiff is qualified for a position, for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, courts in this circuit apply an objective standard.”); Sempier v. … App’x. 588, 591 (3d Cir. 2004) (“While there was clearly friction between Casey and Barber, there is no evidence that Casey’s behavior stemmed from any racial animus.”).

Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.

478 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2007

This is because in some cases the word is qualified so that it only applies to either full refund or the return of excess deposit, whereas in other cases the word is unqualified. … This text contains a qualified use of the word “refunding” and therefore defines the word.

Conte Bros. Automotive v. Quaker State-Slick 50, Inc.

992 F. Supp. 709 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1998

It is well-settled law that one must be a “consumer” in order to sue under this Act, and that commercial resellers such as plaintiffs do not qualify as “consumers”. See City Check Cashing, Inc. v. … That this distinction is not clearly articulated by the court in Camel Hair is presumably explained by the fact that the case was decided prior to the 1988 amendments to the Lanham Act, in which the distinction between false

THE ESTATE OF TINA MARIE MESSINA v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

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

at 12-16); (3) Plaintiff has not sufficiently stated a claim clearly establishing her cause of action or the relief sought comporting with Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 8, (id. at 16-18); (4) New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine … Generally, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not clearly or sufficiently allege why she is entitled to the relief she seeks.

EZEKWO v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.

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

of defendants—including multiple judicial actors who presided over Plaintiff’s prior actions in this District, such that Plaintiff’s claims against them would presumably be further barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity … To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with a letter that clearly articulates the basis of her claims, and none of Plaintiff’s submissions have included any relevant discussion regarding whether her claims

United States v. Manzo

182 F. Supp. 2d 385 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2001

The United States clearly establishes that Dominick Manzo and Carmella Manzo own, for purposes of CERCLA, Lots 6, 6A, and 43. … The Court finds that these presumptions clearly favor the United States’ position.

United States v. Blackwell

954 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 1997

They include such matters as former jeopardy, former conviction, former acquittal, statute of limitations, immunity, lack of jurisdiction, failure of indictment or information to state an offense, etc. … McHale’s testimony established a proper foundation for the admission of the Audit as a business record pursuant- to Rule 803(6).

MONROY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 2020

However, an ALJ need include only “credibly established” limitations. Rutherford v. … Clearly, did not have a sedentary job at any time in the relevant past.

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. CR Bard, Inc.

719 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 21, 1989

Clearly a reasonable examiner would have considered all of the products material in evaluating the patentability of Antoshkiw’s invention. … But do you want to qualify that? I gather from the look on your face— A. There's no way the product would get out with over a .0002 thickness. Q. What I’m trying to figure out is how is that determined? A.

Schering-Plough Corp. v. United States

651 F. Supp. 2d 219 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2009

opinion of the Secretary, does clearly reflect income .... … This is insufficient to establish a bona fide participatory role.