Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,333 results
1.43s
District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 10, 2025
Because Rule 702 “clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories” to which an expert may testify, the Supreme Court has stated: [I]n order to qualify as “scientific knowledge, … Neither study, however, was able to establish a causal relationship.49 Mansouri qualified its findings, stating that “[m]ore research is needed to gain further evidence and to understand more deeply the relationship
Cited 0 timesUnknownMID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. NELSON
District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 5, 2020
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s claim that Lucas qualified as an “insured” under the terms of the Policy. C. … Public policy has been invoked in the insurance context where the terms of the policy might “encourage practices clearly against some recognized conception of the public good.” Rotwein v. Gen. Acc. Grp., 103 N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnknownYellowstone Capital LLC and Yitzhak Stern v. Argonaut Insurance Company
District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 2026
In their update, they reiterated their position that the Verified Petition qualified as a covered “Claim” under the Policy. (Compl. ¶ 56; Ex. O at 1.) … Ct. 1980) (“The legislature clearly intended Executive Law s 63(12) to cover false advertising as well as other deceptive business practices.”).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 5, 2025
The Court finds that CEG is qualified to serve as the class administrator, and that CEG’s fee is reasonable under the circumstances. CEG will establish the Settlement Fund within seven days of the effective date. … The expiration date shall be clearly identified on the face of each check. (Id.).
Cited 0 timesUnknownROTH v. CLEARCHOICE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 2, 2022
The Third Circuit has held that “harassing conduct may be either severe or pervasive to qualify under the second prong,” of the analysis and that “even a single instance of harassment … In the instant matter, Plaintiff clearly alleges that the Defendant was “on notice” of the alleged harassment.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 7, 2021
Supp. 3d 541, 547 (D.N.J. 2018) (reiterating the Hoffman principle that a district does not qualify under § 1391 if the plaintiff did not have a right to sue there when the suit was commenced); See also 28 U.S.C. § 1631 … The first factor--Plaintiff's choice of forum-- clearly favors New Jersey.
Cited 0 timesUnknown773 F. Supp. 662 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 26, 1991
There are instances in which such rough notes must be produced, as when they contain exculpatory material under Brady, 373 U.S. at 83 , 83 S.Ct. at 1194 , or qualify as Jencks material, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 . … Whether the predicates proved establish a threat of continued racketeering activity depends on the specific facts of each case.
Cited 30 timesPublishedPrimoris T&D Services, LLC v. FirstEnergy Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2026
Having established that state law applies to interpretive questions, the Court must now decide which state’s law to apply. … Here, while the forum selection clause states that suits arising from the PO “may be” brought in Summit County, Ohio, that statement is immediately qualified with a parenthetical stating that suits “against Purchaser,
Cited 0 timesUnknownUNIMED INTERNATIONAL INC. v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC
District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2021
As a party may still qualify as a “consumer” if it purchased the merchandise in question “indirect[ly],” Plaintiff’s purchase through the Advertising Companies is not a bar to relief. See Bianchi v. Lazy Days R.V. … Defendant is clearly on notice of the allegations raised against it, and Plaintiff has presented a plausible narrative of wrongdoing. 7920, 2014 WL 6991993, at *7 (D.N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCAMPBELL v. TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BRUNSWICK
District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 13, 2024
Ann. 40A:14-181.2 prohibits police departments from establishing quota systems for arrests or citations. … Plaintiff, clearly on notice, should have alerted the Superior Court and sought leave to add his additional allegations.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDOE v. WALGREEN NATIONAL CORPORATION
District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2022
Plaintiff is ordered to file an Amended Complaint clearly specifying her citizenship and the basis for this Court’s continued jurisdiction. … The determination of which employees qualify as supervisors for the purpose of vicarious liability is a fact-specific analysis, but generally includes individuals controlling the day- to-day working environment.
Cited 0 timesUnknownROMSPEN ROBBINSVILLE, LLC v. TOWNSHIP OF ROBBINSVILLE
District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2022
Further, Township Defendants argue that the United States Supreme Court has found that a 32- month moratorium on developing a comprehensive land use plan did not qualify as a Fifth Amendment taking. … Here, the Amended Complaint falls short of establishing a substantive due process claim.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2022
The PLRA directs district courts to sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous, is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such … Here, however, Plaintiff’s Complaint clearly states that upon remand from the Appellate Division, 3 The NJCRA was modeled after 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and creates a private cause of action for violations of civil rights secured
Cited 0 timesUnknownLUDWIG v. MICHAELS ARTS & CRAFTS STORE
District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 24, 2020
(DE 25-8 at 3) Further, the arbitrator found the base plates “were black, contrasted with the light colored floorings,” and “clearly stand out in the photos.” … Here, defendant contends that plaintiff failed to establish proof of causation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCHO v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2021
The Plan is “established and maintained . . . in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 1102.” Id. ¶ 40. … Ct. 1615, 1620-21 (2020) for the proposition that an ERISA plaintiff must “plausibly and clearly allege a concrete injury” in order to establish Article III standing. Prudential Br. at 16; Prudential Reply at 3.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2022
Under this definition, a plaintiff qualifies as disabled only if her physical or mental impairments are of such severity that she is not only unable to perform her past relevant work … Plaintiff had to establish the severity of the impairment prior to the date last insured. John M. v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-CV-15012, 2022 WL 489460, at *8 (D.N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCRAWFORD v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2022
We are satisfied that defendant’s third petition, filed fourteen years from the date of his conviction, is clearly time- barred. R. 3:22–12. … Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 (1960) (“[A] litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities.”) (emphasis added).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2020
Melinkov is a Russian-qualified lawyer and a partner in Moscow office of Linklaters CIS. … As a result, Uralchem has not establish that the information sought is “for use” in a foreign proceeding, see Certain Funds v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2024
Therefore, “any statement, or portion thereof, that is not clearly denied – in substance, not merely with the label ‘disputed’ – and with a proper citation to the record in a responsive Rule 56.1 statement is deemed admitted … Here, Innovative, J and S, KLJ, and Hammond qualify as “trade[s] or businesses,” as defined by the IRS.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAUTOMOTIVE FINANCE CORPORATION v. DZ MOTORS, LLC
District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 9, 2021
Here, the evidence at trial did not clearly establish that AFC provided DZ Motors with specific payoff amounts and the stock number associated with the Bentley. … After carefully considering the evidence at trial, the Court finds that while the first element of the accord and satisfaction doctrine is clearly satisfied, the trial record does not establish the second and third elements
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna