Case law

SHOFFLER v. CAPE MAY COUNTY NEW JERSEY

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

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Given these undisputed facts and relevant caselaw, Plaintiff’s property at 704-06 West Burk Avenue qualifies as an “open field.”

BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. BECERRA

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

As such, the Court finds that the Program does not qualify as a per se taking under Cedar Point. … They contend that the Program “is not immunized from constitutional scrutiny merely because it’s labeled as a condition on participation in a voluntary program.” (Oral Arg. Tr. 41:3-5.)

SMITH, JR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2025

An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Jones, 364 at 504 (quoting Sullivan, 493 U.S. at 530). … In this case, the evidence fails to establish the presence of the "paragraph C" criteria.

K.E. v. NORTHERN HIGHLANDS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2019

This is clearly a very unusual situation... |T.E.] deserves an academically challenging AND safe environment. (DE 24-1 4 84; DE 26-1 7 84) (alterations in original). … Clearly, implementation of these suggestions would depend on T.E.’s presence at Northern Highlands. T.E.’s parents frustrated any such effort by placing him at Dwight-Englewood.

RIDLEY v. MRS BPO, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 2019

two-pronged inquiry: first, the named-plaintiff’s interests must be sufficiently aligned with the interests of the absentee class members; and second, the plaintiff’s counsel must be qualified … Finally, an ascertainable class “protects defendants by ensuring that those persons who will be bound by the final judgment are clearly identifiable.” Id.

GIBBS v. BRENNAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 2021

The parties do not dispute that Gibbs belongs to a protected class by virtue of her sex, that she was qualified for her position, or that her demotion was an adverse employment action. … Although he need not establish that precise type of disparate treatment to establish a claim of discrimination, he must establish some causal nexus between his membership in a protected class and the decision not to rehire

United States v. Grober

595 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2008

Congress established the Commission to formulate and constantly refine national sentencing standards. … Case law clearly interprets the Act to preclude discovery requests of the Commission in these contexts. In United, States v.

BOSWELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 25, 2022

Shipkin’s letter does not qualify as a medical opinion that the ALJ was required to evaluate. Indeed, Dr. … “[W]here a claimant is represented by counsel before the ALJ, an ALJ’s ‘passivity in developing the record will only be sufficient for remand or reversal when it has clearly prejudiced the claimant.’”

LARSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 2020

Disability To qualify for benefits, a claimant must demonstrate, inter alia, a disability: i.e., that he “is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity … Nerve conduction testing did not clearly establish radiculopathy or neuropathy.

MUSLIM v. NWACHUKWU

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

Plaintiff's Complaint raises a First Amendment retaliation claim, and the District Court’s screening Order clearly proceeds an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim … coupled with timing to establish a causal link.”

SEQUEIRA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 20, 2026

frivolous or malicious; (2) fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seek[] monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). … Nov, 24, 2025) (per curiam) (affirming denial of leave to amend where “the [district] court clearly explained why the original complaint was deficient and it need not have provided more advice” (citing Mala v.

DELPIZZO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

“‘To establish that a claimant maintains the RFC to perform past relevant work in a composite job, the evidence must establish that the claimant can perform each job within a composite job, whether as actually performed … Although Plaintiff argues that her testimony establishes that she performed the job of finance manager for only six months, the Court finds that the ALJ reasonably interpreted the following testimony as establishing that

GODINEZ v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2022

I find no basis to conclude that the state court decisions were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … The record establishes, as the state courts held and as Respondents argue, that Investigator Alicea was qualified to testify as an expert regarding MS-13 and its connection to Petitioner.

RAMOS v. DG TRC MANAGMENT COMPANY, LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2021

Service of Process2 As the Court identified in its April 2021 Letter Order, Plaintiff failed to establish that process was properly served on Defendant when a copy of the … In her initial motion, Plaintiff stated in a conclusory manner that “[she] has clearly set forth the following causes of action against the Defendant.” (D.E. No. 7-2 at 2).

GILL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

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

Here, the ALJ clearly considered Dr. Theccanat’s medical findings but did not find such findings persuasive in light of other medical evidence in the record. … Moreover, the ALJ’s mere failure to cite specific evidence does not establish that the ALJ failed to consider it.”). In sum, the ALJ’s finding that Dr.

Smith, Kline & French Laboratories v. Clark & Clark

62 F. Supp. 971 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 1, 1945

Unfair competition involves any violation of a right arising from the operation of an established business. … Clearly the patent law was enacted to benefit society by encouraging discoveries and inventions.

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA LLC v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA) INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 11, 2021

“The definitive article ‘the’ is used to refer to an element which has been established earlier in a claim.” Id. … If that element is not established earlier in the same claim, the definitive article may refer to an element established in an earlier claim. See Vidir Mach. Inc. v. United Fixtures Co., 570 F. Supp. 2d 693, 699 (M.D.

Walsh v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

96 F.R.D. 632 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 1983

matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims; (C) by diversifying the investments of the plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, unless under the circumstances it is clearly … The scheme established by ERISA relies upon the provisions of each plan at the time of termination.

SMART VENT PRODUCTS, INC. v. CRAWL SPACE DOOR SYSTEM INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2020

Remittitur — the reduction of a jury award in a civil case — “is well established as a device employed when the trial judge finds that a decision of the jury is clearly unsupported and/or excessive.” Cortez v. … Rice should not have been qualified to testify as an expert because he did not employ adequate methodologies in reaching his conclusions. [See Docket No. 332, at 9-19.] Namely, Smart Vent contends that Dr.

MELEO v. BLINKEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2024

Ordinarily, to qualify for mandamus, the party seeking a writ of mandamus must meet three elements: “(1) a clear and indisputable right to relief, (2) that the [G]overnment agency or official is violating a clear duty … The court found the letter’s language “clearly indicate[d] that the decision on [the plaintiff’s] visa is still pending and not final.” Assad, 2013 WL 5935631, at *4.