Case law

SIAS v. NEW JERSEY SECRETARY OF STATE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 16, 2024

Petitions nominating Electors for alternative political party candidates must be signed by 800 legally qualified voters of New Jersey, id. § 19:13-5, must be filed with the Secretary of State by the ninety-ninth day preceding … The Secretary of State “shall adopt, reject or modify the recommended report and decision” and “shall state clearly the reasons for doing so.” /d. § 52:14B-10.

POLIZZI v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 2021

Div. 1994), where the court held that that the “reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy’s boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the … Defendants argue that the provisions in Morrison that the court found to be unambiguous and therefore “immune from application of the [reasonable expectations] doctrine are either identical to or substantially

ALAN A. v. Verniero

970 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 1997

The language of Rule 702 [of the Federal Rules of Evidence] and the accompanying advisory notes make it clear that various kinds of ‘knowledge[,] skill, experience, training or education,’ ... qualify an expert”) (citation … Further, the Act provides no immunity to persons who willfully or wantonly or in bad faith provide or fail to provide information relevant to the procedures set forth in the Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-5, 2C:7-9.

Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp.

68 F. Supp. 2d 508 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 26, 1999

Manbeck qualified this testimony with the fact that this is not a statutory obligation but rather advice from the Patent Office to attorneys. Tr. at 5.99. … Collins and Benfield’s work qualifies as prior art under section 102(g). Tr. at 5.120.

TAYLOR

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 2026

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[.]” … Although this provision clearly contemplates suits brought by plan “participants” like Taylor, the remedies sought must be equitable in nature. See Bixler v. Cent. Pa.

LOGLISCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 8, 2021

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.’” Jones, 364 F.3d at 504 (quoting Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990)) (emphasis in original). … The initial Disability Determination Explanation, Document 7-3, page 77, clearly indicates that the evaluator clearly believed the claimant had a “severe” spinal impairment and a “severe” fibromyalgia

RIVLIN

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

A trustee qualifies as a “real party to the controversy” when the trustee “possesses certain customary powers to hold, manage, and dispose of assets for the benefit of others.” Jd. at 464. … As to the second element, the terms of the Guaranty are unambiguous and clearly set forth Defendant’s obligation that he “absolutely and unconditionally guarantees ... the prompt and unconditional payment of the

COSGROVE v. VEOLIA ES INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

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

VESIS contends that (1) plaintiffs are not qualifying “workers” under the statute; (2) they did not perform qualifying construction work; and (3) their work was not undertaken with BPU financial assistance, and the Court … Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005)).2 “If the statutory language clearly reveals the Legislature’s intent, then [the Court’s] interpretive mission comes to an end.” Id. (citing Nicholas v.

CASTELLI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 2, 2026

Plaintiff alleges that ARC never investigated Mullane’s “several clearly false reports” about Plaintiff’s purported conduct. (Id. ¶ 75). … Supp. 2d at 206 (“New Jersey courts have instead addressed whether the statement was protected by a qualified privilege.” (citing Abella v. Barringer Res., Inc., 615 A.2d 288, 291 (N.J. Ch.

LUXAMA v. IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2021

TAC ¶ 85. 7 Plaintiffs contend that this provision was not in the Lease, but the Lease clearly contains it. … Nevertheless, the reasoning espoused in Reyes hold true – the oral agreements must be uniform (or at least not materially different) to qualify for class treatment.

ALI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2019

In making this determination, ALJ Lissek first cited to the testimony of VE Anderson and Plaintiff to determine that Plaintiff’s cashier job qualified as past relevant work. (R. 26.) … medical findings established in the record. (Pl. Br. at 10, R. 26.)

STEPIEN v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 21, 2021

The Supreme Court has recently clarified what types of material qualify as “predecisional.” Broadly, a predecisional document is anything generated before the final decision on the matter. … Although some documents, such as draft opinions, are clearly “deliberative in nature,” the boundaries of the “deliberative process” can be fuzzy.

8 ERIE ST. JC LLC v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 21, 2020

plaintiff must allege facts that “establish each individual [d]efendant’s liability for the misconduct alleged.” Id. … State laws that even-handedly regulate “to effectuate a legitimate local public interest will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Id.

MCBURNIE v. CRC INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

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

Plaintiff contends that “plans” containing targets for Plaintiff’s job performance “were constantly shifted by [Defendant CRC] in a fashion adverse to [Plaintiff] and in a manner clearly seeking to allegedly justify his … as to whether the joined defendant had obtained an employment status so as to satisfy an element of a Pennsylvania conspiracy statute, and (b) the Pennsylvania state court might not find that the joined defendant was immune

JORJANI v. NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2024

So, yeah, we’re clearly — we’re clearly being disrupted by this. Yeah. … The parties’ remaining arguinents, including those relating to qualified immunity and damages, also need not be addressed. Vv.

United States v. General Instrument Corporation

87 F. Supp. 157 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 28, 1949

This act demonstrated that special legislation was required to provide immunity from Sherman Act prosecutions. … Clearly, none considered that it was essential to protect their business against the competition of the other two.

CITIZENS BANK, N.A. v. NOSTRUM LABORATORIES, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2024

Slone is clearly qualified to offer an opinion on a corporation’s accounting practices and business restructuring. … Supp. 1304, 1308 (D.N.J. 1995) (“It is also well-established, as a matter of law, that the Court cannot rewrite the contract or alter it simply because its results turned out differently than the parties expected.”).

Kronfeld v. First Jersey National Bank

638 F. Supp. 1454 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 1986

This language accurately states the degrees of knowledge necessary to establish a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 cause of action in this Circuit. In Ernst & Ernst v. … Instead, a conspiracy often is established by inferences from circumstantial evidence. Venture Technology, Inc. v.

DAVIS v. DEJOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 17, 2020

The element of material adversity is highlighted because “it is important to separate significant from trivial harms,” further stating “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize … The Supreme Court has clearly articulated that “it is important to separate significant from trivial harms,” and an adverse action is material when it could have “dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting

OWENS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2022

Kaufman reported that Plaintiff was “clearly improving” and by October 2014 Dr. Kaufman found that Plaintiff was doing “exceptionally well.” Tr. 865, 874. By December of 2014, Dr. … The ALJ is not required to query the VE on every impairment alleged by a claimant, but only those that are established by medical evidence. See Rutherford v.