Case law

Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. v. Rutgers University

803 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2011

For those allegations not clearly refuted by the face of the applications, the Court must accept the allegations as true on a motion to dismiss and may not resolve factual disputes. … The burden of establishing jurisdiction falls on the plaintiff. Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed.Cir.2007).

Birthright v. Birthright, Inc.

827 F. Supp. 1114 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 1993

Accordingly, the “B” logo is a suggestive term, and it therefore qualifies under A.J. Canfield for trademark protection. 22. … In the case at bar, the parties were clearly not competitors.

Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

450 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2006

The 404(b)(1) Guidelines establish a presumption that all practicable alternatives that do not involve a discharge into wetlands have less adverse impact on the environment “unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.” … The 404(b)(1) Guidelines establish a presumption that practicable alternatives are available for projects that are not water-dependent “unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.” 40 C.F.R. § 230.10 (a)(3).

HAINES v. TAKEDA PHARMACUETICALS USA, INC.

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

Plaintiff has not met his burden to establish pretext. … As the term “lease” is not clearly defined in the Second Offer Letter and there are two reasonable interpretations of the term, an ambiguity exists.

RTC Mortgage Trust 1994 N-1 v. Fidelity National Title Insurance

58 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 1999

In addition, paragraph 7(b) of the policy clearly states that, “in the event of litigation! … Thus, Eastern clearly had the authority to perform title searches on behalf of Title USA.

PORTILLO v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 1, 2020

As a final requirement, the class must also be clearly defined and objectively ascertainable. See Byrd v. BMW of N. … Therefore, the Court finds that the class is clearly defined and ascertainable here.

PORTILLO v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2020

As a final requirement, the class must also be clearly defined and objectively ascertainable. See Byrd v. BMW of N. … Therefore, the Court finds that the class is clearly defined and ascertainable here.

HOTALING & CO., LLC v. LY BERDITCHEV CORP.

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

“A district judge’s simple disagreement with the magistrate judge’s findings is insufficient to meet the clearly erroneous standard of review.” Andrews v. … LYB explains that Hotaling and Sanniti “need to establish that Luxardo’s (unregistered) trademarks are valid to pursue their unfair competition claims.” Id. at 8, 10.

THORPE v. CIPPARULO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 29, 2024

Plaintiffs IFP application here has established her inability to pay the filing fee, as the application states that Plaintiff has a monthly income of only $2,720 and financial assets worth only several hundred dollars … The claims in Plaintiff's federal action, although not clearly stated, turn on “Defendants negligent representation” of Plaintiff through which she allegedly “suffered irreparable harm.” (/d. at 4.)

DIAZ v. SUNRUN, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2025

Before approving Diaz for the solar panels, Siddiquei requested that she sign a one-page document to see if her property qualified under a government rebate program. [Diaz Cert. ¶ 24.] … Here, Diaz has clearly challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement itself.

Moorestown Tp. Bd. of Educ. v. SD

811 F. Supp. 2d 1057 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 2011

In New Jersey, the process of enrollment is a mere a mechanism to establish residency and is not a strict barrier to attend school. … It would clearly contravene the language and purpose of the Act and other agency pronouncements. See supra.

DAVIDOV

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2026

A pro se plaintiff’s “submissions are read to raise the strongest arguments suggested therein” but such “a forgiving interpretation does not render immune from dismissal or summary judgment claims that lack procedural … Sep. 28, 1994) (“Where 14 Additionally, Felicia’s statements during the telephone call qualify as an exception to hearsay because Felicia is a party opponent. Fed. R.

Harris v. Heckler

576 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 1983

Were it not for the rule, plaintiffs would probably qualify for AFDC, as they did in the past. … Defendant's argument assumes what it purports to establish. 7 .

GRAHAM v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 23, 2020

Here, the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Petitioner has not raised a valid constitutional violation. … In light of the record before this Court, the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable determination, nor was it contrary to clearly established federal law.

BENTON v. SIMS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 2022

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. … The Appellate Division did not unreasonably apply any clearly establish federal law in rejecting Petitioner’s claim.

BELL v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 2025

“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.

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

482 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2007

Pfizer also argues that in a field where the COX-2 in vitro assays were new and less understood than well-established in vivo assays, the person of ordinary skill would have clearly preferred to start with a lead compound … It does not clearly define the boundaries of distinct inventions.

DEVITA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 23, 2025

Establishing Disability under the Social Security Act Every qualifying individual who is under a “disability” is entitled to disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). … He sometimes [cannot] walk, move, write, or even speak clearly.” [R. at 618.]

TORO v. ASAO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2024

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact remains. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). … immunity.

PRIOLI v. COUNTY OF OCEAN

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

“To establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination under” Title VII, “a plaintiff must first establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position in question; (3) … Therefore, Title VII Plaintiffs have established a qualifying adverse action.