Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
4,333 results
0.96s
District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2020
In support of its argument that it had a reasonable probability of success, Plaintiff avers that “the wheels were clearly in motion. … Plaintiff similarly fails to establish causation.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2023
Ct. 2015 (2022) (holding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements clause of statutory definition of crime of violence). (See Crim. No. 15-609, ECF No. 130.) … In considering a Section 2255 petition, the “district court must accept the truth of the movant’s factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous on the basis of the existing record.” Johnson v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SALTWATER POOL SUPPLIES
District Court, D. New Jersey · May 14, 2021
Plaintiff has established both elements. As discussed supra, plaintiff has established a viable claim for trademark infringement. … Defendant’s interference was clearly done intentionally as it used Hayward’s marks and generated the pop-up ad in connection with searches for Hayward products. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶34-36).
Cited 0 timesUnknownPORTILLO v. NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC.
District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 2022
Id.; see also, e.g., 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(j)(1) (“The lease shall clearly specify the legal obligations of the authorized carrier to maintain insurance coverage….) … . § 376.12(e) (“The lease shall clearly specify the responsibility for each party with respect to the cost of fuel, fuel taxes….”) (emphasis added); Renteria v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 28, 2024
The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing its right to summary judgment. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. … “At common law, a general contractor enjoyed broad immunity from liability for injuries to an employee of a subcontractor resulting from either the condition of the premises or the manner in which the hired work was performed
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 2019
As to what business interests qualify as “legitimate,” Solari, 264 A.2d at 61, an “employer has no legitimate interest in preventing competition as such” or simply prohibiting an employee from exercising her “general … The Kusins court did not misapprehend this; deciding one of the six consolidated appeals, it clearly stated the following: It is of no import that the ADP clients Hopper solicited were not located in his previous
Cited 0 timesUnknownState of Illinois v. Eli Lilly and Company
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 2025
This conduct by [AstraZeneca] was contrary to Congress’s intent in designing the Medicare program, and it clearly transgressed the expectations of the marketplace.” (emphasis added)). … Manufacturer Defendants argue both of the State’s claims are time-barred because “Illinois indisputably knew well before the five-year limitations period that list prices exclude rebates,” and that no tolling doctrine or immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknownCHERRY-MATALA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2021
The ALJ clearly discounted only Dr. 5 Plaintiff also suggests that Dr. Tracy’s opinion that “disability status is warranted” was meant to “touch on [Plaintiff’s] persistence at competitive work.” (Pl. Br. 18). … Tracy necessarily qualifies as a treating source.”). Second, the basis for Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFRISCO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2024
A diagnosis of impairment, by itself, does not establish entitlement to benefits under the Act”). … Shipkin’s letter does not qualify as a medical opinion that the ALJ was required to evaluate. Indeed, Dr.
Cited 0 timesUnknown954 F. Supp. 841 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1996
The desk was clearly visible through front and side windows in several photographs. In one photograph, the soda and cigarette machines located behind the desk can be clearly seen through the windows. … In another photograph, a man can be clearly seen through one of the side windows standing at the desk.
Cited 14 timesPublishedSLEAP v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 16, 2022
Zimmerman has been treating her with homeopathic medications, including vitamin C and vitamin B infusions every other week to boost her immune system and help with the chronic fatigue. (A.R. 45-46.) … The Act establishes a five-step sequential process for evaluation by the ALJ to determine whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
Cited 0 timesUnknownINDUSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS ZENU S.A.S. v. LATINFOOD U.S. CORP.
District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 2024
It clearly relates to budgeting and Defendants should not be expected to pay for it. … The May 26, 2022 Order clearly states that Plaintiff’s award shall include the costs to prepare and conduct the October 2020 deposition.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKERTESZ v. COLONY TIRE CORPORATION
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2025
Obviously, the customers, salespeople, and vendors were going to be unhappy with the decision and clearly, they were since the trip was reinstated. … To establish an NJLAD claim for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she: (1) qualifies as an individual with a disability, or [ ] is perceived as having a disability, as
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 25, 2024
“In considering a motion to vacate a defendant's sentence, ‘the court must accept the truth of the movant's factual allegations unless they are clearly frivolous based on the existing record.’” United States v. … He acknowledged that Trial Counsel explained the charges brought against him, although he seemed to qualify the acknowledgement by adding “on a limited basis,” thereafter. Jd. at 5-6.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2024
“The intent to waive need not be stated expressly, provided the circumstances clearly show that the party knew of the right and then abandoned it.” Jd. at 254. … ERISA establishes “a uniform regulatory regime over employee benefit plans.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 (2004).
Cited 0 timesUnknownSPEEDWELL, LLC v. TOWN OF MORRISTOWN
District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 2023
immediately and the Town shall promptly and without delay review [the application] and, if [Plaintiffs] reasonably demonstrate[] to the Town [that they have] the financial and managerial ability to develop the project, qualify … a meeting of the minds sufficient to establish a conspiracy.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. MALLINCKRODT PLC
District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 2024
Notably, the Amended Complaint clearly and in detail sets forth the alleged materially false and misleading statements made by Defendants, and provides explanations as to why those statements are misleading. (Am. … “In addition to establishing a heightened pleading standard, the PSLRA provides a so- called ‘safe harbor’ that immunizes certain ‘forward-looking’ statements from §10(b) liability.” OFI Asset Mgmt. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2022
New Jersey Court Rule 4:42-9 allows for fee shifting in order to “discourage[] insurance companies from attempting to avoid their contractual obligations and force their insureds to expend counsel fees to establish the … United clearly qualifies as a successful claimant under Rule 4:42-9(1)(6). Liberty does not contest the applicability of Rule 4:42-9(1)(6).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2020
• Irreparable harm was not established because (1) there was not proof that Eonsmoke was dissipating—as opposed to just moving—assets; and (2) few Eonsmoke products with Juul-like packaging or using the Juul … Now “encumbering at least tens of millions of dollars of [Eonsmoke’s] assets” would clearly harm defendants. Hoxworth, 903 F.3d at 207.
Cited 0 timesUnknownLOCURTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 17, 2021
Lockhart, 749 F.3d 148, 152 (2d Cir. 2014) (explaining that the series qualifier canon of statutory construction “‘provides that a modifier at the beginning or end of a series of terms modifies all the terms’”) (quoting … Li’s opinion was not persuasive because “it is clearly contradicted by Dr. Li’s own reports, and it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.” R. 23, 49.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna