Case law

Kirschling v. Atlantic City Board of Education

10 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2014

To “demonstrate ‘background circumstances’ sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination[,]” under this standard Plaintiff can either establish that: (1) he “was better qualified for the position than the minority candidate … This is demonstrated clearly from the chart below.

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Sandoz Ltd.

916 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1995

Defendants conclude that the Protective Order immunizes all unintentional disclosures against any waiver argument. … Establishing that a disclosure was unintentional, therefore, does not go far in establishing the absence of waiver.

Oravsky v. Encompass Insurance

804 F. Supp. 2d 228 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2011

Reply Brf. at 2; see also Moving Brf. at 8 (arguing that Metlife establishes that “antique automobile policies, like plaintiffs, fall outside the provisions of New Jersey’s automobile insurance laws ...). … A “special” policy is one that is available only to certain individuals who qualify as “eligible low income individuals.” 39:6A-3.3.

Smith v. Continental Ins. Corp.

747 F. Supp. 275 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 1990

The burden is upon a plaintiff alleging discrimination pursuant to § 1981 to establish by the preponderance of the evidence that (1) he or she applied for an available position; (2) he or she was qualified for the available … Even if there were positions available for which she was qualified — and, I reiterate, she has failed to so establish — plaintiff has neither refuted the existence of or her awareness of the eminently reasonable company policy

KJ Ex Rel. Lowry v. DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAM.

363 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2005

The rule seeks to screen out claims for which there is clearly no remedy, or where the plaintiff has no right to assert. Port Auth. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir.1999). … This immunity for licensing activities is a narrow exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the TCA. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 59:2-5 (1992).

Capua v. City of Plainfield

643 F. Supp. 1507 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 1986

Courts have clearly established that individuals retain an expectation of privacy and a right to be free from government intrusion in the integrity of their own bodies. See Schmerber v. … Clearly, no one can deny that the public has an interest in the integrity of its fire fighting forces.

United States v. Raniere

895 F. Supp. 699 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 1995

The use immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 6003 11 , affords “the Depart *708 ment of Justice exclusive authority to grant immunities.” Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 254 , 103 S.Ct. 608, 612 , 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983). … Raniere’s request for a protective order or use immunity is denied. 1 .

Carroll v. Delaware River Port Authority

160 F. Supp. 3d 771 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2015

Rather than arguing otherwise, DRPA argues that Carroll cannot establish his prima facie case because he undisputedly was not physically able (i.e., qualified) to perform the duties of Sergeant. … The Third Circuit has clearly set forth the two-step legal standard to be applied.

CONROY, BY AND THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, JENNEY FERGUSON v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants collectively assert that they enjoy qualified immunity from suit. … Turning then to Warden Smith, government officials are generally immune from suit for civil damages so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which

Ostroff v. New Jersey Supreme Court

415 F. Supp. 326 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 1976

Quite clearly the practice of law is not a matter of grace, “. . . but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and his moral character”. Baird v. … Supreme Court and the Board of Law Examiners of all authority to establish requirements for admission to the bar and abolish all semblance of objective criteria.

Pagelow v. Flemming

189 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 1960

The application to establish a period of disability was denied by the Bureau on the ground that the medical evidence submitted failed to establish the inability of the applicant to engage in “any substantial gainful activity … It clearly appears from his decision that the conclusion was based upon a factual determination that the plaintiff was not suffering from a “disability” as defined in Sections 216 (i) and 223 of the Act, supra.

Doe v. Banos

713 F. Supp. 2d 404 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 2010

Nor did defendants attempt to quell John Doe’s opposition, offering him the option of qualifying his signature with “full reservation of rights.” … Therefore, John Doe has failed to establish a threat of irreparable harm justifying preliminary injunctive relief. 15 3.

United States v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

416 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 1976

Sec. 814 ) and upon their filing and approval by that agency, were immune from the antitrust laws. … Most of the opinions were qualified to start with, and were further degraded by the testimony in court.

BOROWSKI v. KEAN UNIVERSITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 12, 2024

On February 15, 2024, this Court issued an opinion and order (“February 2024 Opinion”) dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint on Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, and failure to state a claim grounds pursuant to … established” for qualified immunity purposes.

FOULKE v. TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL

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

To determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-step process. … on individual defendants’ qualified immunity arguments at pleading stage). 6 In determining whether they can plead facts to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Plaintiffs

Wilkes v. Borough of Clayton

696 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1988

On December 16, 1987, this court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s claim against defendants Winters, Doe and McDonald in their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity. … In so ruling, we based our decision on the absence of any clearly established constitutional right of arrestees in police custody to be free from visual observation while using bathroom facilities.

United States v. Articles of Drug . . . Hormonin

498 F. Supp. 424 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 1980

The plain language of 21 U.S.C. § 321 (p) mandates that a manufacturer establish (1) that the drug product is “generally recognized” as safe and effective by qualified experts under the conditions prescribed and (2) having … The well-established general rule is “that the United States [is] neither bound nor estopped by the acts of . . .

DB v. Bloom

896 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 1995

The three elements of an NJLAD claim are established. … The fees and costs were well-documented with the work completed and hours spent clearly set forth.

YASIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2026

A government policy or custom can be established in two ways: Policy is made when a ‘decisionmaker possessing final authority to establish … However, Plaintiff’s allegations are premised on the PCPO’s alleged inactions that clearly relate to the PCPO’s authority to investigate and enforce the criminal laws of the State of New Jersey as delegated by the State

DeSantis v. New Jersey Transit

103 F. Supp. 3d 583 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2015

Sometimes, the but-for causation element may be established by the nature of the harassment itself. … Nabisco Biscuit Co., 224 F.Supp.2d 852, 865 (D.N.J.2002) (“Obviously, where conduct is clearly racial or racist in nature, the causal element will be satisfied.”). But DeSantis’s is not an allegation of that kind.