Case law

Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

461 F. Supp. 2d 271 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 9, 2006

He applied established economic principles to this data, and explained how it informed his ultimate conclusions. (Id.) Pfizer’s contention that Dr. … There, an opthamologist planned to testify regarding the competitive advantages accruing to pharmacoemulsification machines that incorporated the claimed invention, Occlusion Mode. 2 As is the case here, the doctor was clearly

Oberti Ex Rel. Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon School District

801 F. Supp. 1392 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 17, 1992

Rafael clearly is an “individual with handicaps” as defined by the Rehabilitation Act. See 29 U.S.C. § 706 (8). 38. … In order to establish 'educational necessity,’ the regulations require that segregated special education placements must be “necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective

Lamb v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

509 F. Supp. 560 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 1980

the concept of “qualified” pension plans. … Thus, there is nothing illegal or forbidden about establishing a plan that would otherwise fall within ERISA, for example, but that fails to qualify with its requirements.

ALLEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2026

Defendants contend that they “are immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” (Defs.’ Second Moving Br. 9.) … Moreover, “[a] public entity may net administer a licensing . .. program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability” or “establish requirements for the

TALOTTA, MD v. TROXELL,J.S.C.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 2025

To determine whether an act qualifies as a judicial act, courts look to “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether … Since Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not consider the remaining three factors.

Pineland State Bank v. PROPOSED FIRST NAT. BK., BRICKTOWN

335 F. Supp. 1376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 4, 1971

To begin with, federal law clearly permits the establishment by a national banking association of branch banks, § 36 of 12 U.S.C. providing: “(c) A national banking association may, with the approval of the Comptroller of … Moreover, a state clearly has no authority to prohibit the creation of a national bank or, once established, to confine or restrict its operations. As the Supreme Court put it, in Mercantile National Bank v.

DOTY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC v. SECOND STONE ENTERPRISES LLC

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2025

In other words, a lawsuit “does not qualify for... immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover... . an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’” Pro. Real Est. Invs., Inc. v. … See Hanover, 806 F.3d at 180 (explaining that there is no minimum number of cases to qualify as a pattern or series when determining what constitutes “sham litigation,” but four could qualify as “a series of filings”)

Vazquez v. Ferre

404 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 19, 1975

Clearly, the failure of the Puerto Rican officials to perform any duties imposed upon them by federal or local law was action “under color of state law.” See Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491, 494 (3d Cir. 1967). … The issue of sovereign immunity, therefore, need not be reached.

In Re Grand Jury Empaneled on April 6, 1993

869 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 6, 1994

But he cannot lawfully be compelled, in the absence of a grant of adequate immunity from prosecution, to condemn himself by his own oral testimony.” Id. at 123-24 , 77 S.Ct. at 1149 . … Less is required in establishing that evidence is what its proponent claims it to be____ The evidence which suffices to establish authenticity should be evidence that is relevant on the limited question of genuineness: that

WILSON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 2022

Judicial immunity was established to permit judges to render decisions “with independence and without fear of consequences.” Pierson v. … Accordingly, New Jersey state agencies “established in the Executive Branch of State Government” qualify for Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, “regardless 4 Although Plaintiff has failed to properly plead a claim

Gipson v. Township of Bass River

82 F.R.D. 122 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 1979

Clearly, leaving process at defendants’ place of employment does not qualify under the dwelling house or place of abode method. Bell v. Hosse, 31 F.R.D. 181 (D.Tenn. 1962). … Defendant offers three possibilities, the 45-day period established by New Jersey Court Rule 4:69-6; the two-year period established by N.J. S.A. 59:8-8; or the two-year personal injury statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2.

Cooper v. Cape May County Board of Social Services

175 F. Supp. 2d 732 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2001

Bright’s dissemination of work to him was clearly within the scope of her job responsibilities, and was subsequently approved by the DOP as consistent with her job responsibilities. … custom, or usage, of any State or Territory ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the *743 jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities

In re Leuthold

116 F. Supp. 777 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 1953

It provided for the recruitment until June 30, 1953 into the Regular Army for periods of not less than five years of 2,500 qualified unmarried male aliens to be integrated into established units of citizen soldiers *779 and … Meanwhile he is clearly not entitled to have his present petition for naturalization granted. Hence it will be dismissed without prejudice. Let an order to that effect be entered. .

ALLEN v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 16, 2020

Voluntary removal of a matter to federal court alone does not qualify as an effective waiver of a State’s sovereign immunity. Id. at 198-99. Nothing in the New Jersey Supreme Court case cited by Plaintiffs (see Pl. … Here, Plaintiffs point to no specific litigation conduct other than Defendants’ voluntary removal of this matter to federal court to establish a waiver of Defendants’ sovereign immunity.

Soto v. City of Newark

72 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 29, 1999

Clearly, the Soto’s did not “participate or benefit from [this] service” — the wedding — in a manner “equal to that afforded to others.” Id. at § 35.130(b)(ii). … Defendants cite to N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2B:12-1 to 12-31 which establishes the Municipal Court’s power and jurisdiction. 7 .

THOMAS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2026

substantive or procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and, even if he could establish a due process violation, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established … Accordingly, the Court concludes that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the due process right at issue was not clearly established at the time the conduct occurred. IV.

Bar-David v. Economic Concepts, Inc.

48 F. Supp. 3d 759 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 22, 2014

She reasoned, soundly, that the Plan did not qualify as an ERISA plan, and therefore that ERISA preemption did not apply. … Judge Arleo did not need to carry her analysis any further to establish that federal court jurisdiction was not appropriate.

Fanelli v. Centenary College

211 F.R.D. 268 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2002

The Pansy Court went on to hold that “good cause is established on a showing that disclosure [here, videotaping] will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. … Good cause cannot be established upon some general or speculative alleged harm. III.

Mruz v. Caring, Inc.

991 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1998

Immunity, for example, qualified or sovereign immunity, is normally a defense which must be asserted and proven by á defendant or which may be waived. See, e.g., Gomez v. … At most, Plaintiffs allege that they were threatened with adverse employment actions, clearly not a threat to tangible property. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶ 61(a).