Case law

Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration

884 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 1995

When appropriately documented, additional projects may also qualify as CE’s pursuant to § 771.117(d). (c) Class III (EA’s). Actions in which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established. … The burden of establishing substantial environmental issues is on Plaintiffs. Id. at n. 24. In order to satisfy their burden, they must establish a deficiency in the administrative record. Id. (citation omitted).

FALCO v. ZIMMER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2020

App’x 294, and Defendants do not dispute that the rights asserted by Plaintiff are clearly established.32 Rather, Tooke and Zimmer argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted in good faith and did … The application of qualified immunity is inappropriate at this stage. E.

Baker v. LABOR & INDUSTRY DEP'T

183 N.J. Super. 29 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 2, 1982

Appellant did not qualify as an employee with 17 base weeks during the brief controlling period and to be eligible for benefits had to demonstrate she "earned" $2,200 or more during that time. … Thus, to the extent appellant, after taking maternity leave, received remuneration in the form of sick days, vacation days and personal days, the statutory purposes clearly are not served by giving her disability benefits

Passaic County Board of Social Services ex rel. T.M. v. A.S.

442 N.J. Super. 59 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 4, 2015

He has been qualified in roughly fifteen states in the Northeast as an expert in the application and interpretation of genetic test results relevant to paternity evaluation. … After the preliminary results are obtained, they are examined by only a handful of qualified and designated directors, including Wurzinger.

State v. Maas & Waldstein Co.

83 N.J. Super. 211 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 1964

In such circumstances, the defense of sovereign immunity would not be available to plaintiff. Indeed, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is currently in disfavor. See McCabe v. N. J. Turnpike Authority, 35 N. … J., in accordance with the plans shown on the drawings attached * * These drawings clearly show that the federal consent extended beyond the very limited area of the railroad bridge to which defendant refers.

DENNIS v. MYLIFE.COM, INC.

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

In this case, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has failed to establish the first and third requirements for Section 230 immunity. Pls. Supp. Br. I at 7. … [where] Defendants qualify for the immunity.”

CARBONARO v. GLASSBORO POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 2023

As for the prosecutor’s office, the Complaint establishes that the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office “is charged with the responsibility of establishing and enforcing policies … immunity.

In Re National Credit Management Group, L.L.C.

21 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 1998

“An advertiser’s good faith does' not immunize it from responsibility for its misrepresentations.... ” World Travel, 861 F.2d at 1029 (quotation omitted). … and/or re-establish ... credit.”

A.B. v. S.E.W.

175 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 1, 2003

To prevent endless re-litigation of settled eases, new developments in case law generally do not qualify as “ ‘an extraordinary circumstance’ as to justify relief from a final judgment^]” Hartford Ins. Co. v. … Briefly stated, “[prospective application is appropriate when a decision establishes a new principle of law by overruling past precedent or by deciding an issue of first impression.” Montells v.

La Troncal Food Corp. and Vicente Intriago v. Director, Division of Taxation

New Jersey Tax Court · Oct 2, 2024

Clearly not. No. Q. Why do you say clearly not. A. … At trial the plaintiff presented the testimony of its president to establish that its business was profitable before the merger.

Tabor v. O'GRADY

59 N.J. Super. 330 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1960

The duty to alight is qualified by the circumstances. … There were circumstances which, taken together, could be found to have qualified the duty to alight. It was 3:30 A.M.

Tonyelle R. Jamison, Etc. v. Jersey City Medical Center

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2024

"This test recognizes that even a person who acted negligently is entitled to a qualified immunity, if [the person] acted in an objectively reasonable manner." Frields, 305 N.J. … Even if defendants were not entitled to immunity, the court correctly determined plaintiff failed to establish JCMC breached any applicable standard of care and failed to prove the alleged "systemic and structural flaws

Grant v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.

780 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 16, 1991

Foreseeability of a prospective benefit to a third party is not enough to establish a third party’s rights. … This paragraph, quoted in full, clearly does not confer third-party benefits on applicants for substitute distributorships. 1 *250 Plaintiff has also failed to make out a valid estoppel claim in Count 3 of his complaint.

Lanni v. State

177 F.R.D. 295 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 16, 1998

The Daubert standard clearly applies to scientific expert testimony. Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 741 . … Essentially, the Supreme Court established an “abuse of discretion” standard of review for decisions excluding or permitting expert opinion.

Association for Fairness in Business Inc. v. New Jersey

82 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2000

Because this report fails to establish discrimination on the part of casino licensees, the State, in relying on it, has failed to establish a compelling interest in remedying that alleged discrimination. … Thus, even if the Commission’s report were accepted as evidence of discrimination in the casino industry, the remedy established by the Casino Control Act is clearly out of sync with the extent of the discrimination that

New Jersey Southern Railroad v. Chandler

65 N.J.L. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1900

In fact it is so expressly provided by the fifth sec *180 tion of the statute, only qualified by the sixth section, which provides that it shall not be recorded by the clerk in any event until the expiration of fifteen days … The fact that the return was recorded clearly appears by theeertificate of the clerk to the record sent up in answer to this-writ. The fact of the record is not denied by the prosecutor.

Wright v. First National Bank

52 N.J. Eq. 392 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Feb 15, 1894

Clearly, the legislature intended to guard against every pretence or mere color and all deceit. … The assignment of Bell being established, he ceased to be a bona fide holder of stock.

Monroe v. Host Marriot Services Corp.

999 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 7, 1998

Even if Monroe’s defamation claims were not barred by the statute of limitations, O’Hare and Crowley-Jacinto are clearly protected in making the alleged statements by a qualified privilege. … The cause of action is clearly directed against Crowley-Jacinto.

State v. Burten

219 N.J. Super. 339 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 20, 1986

Clearly, in this case both failures to make contributions to the pension and/or welfare funds are separate maintainable causes. … S.A. 2A:170-90.2 clearly “relates to” an employee benefit plan.

Aichele v. Borough of Oakley

1 N.J. Super. 621 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 17, 1948

Though the pecuniary interest of the plaintiff is small, the standing of one otherwise qualified to question the resolution is not to be determined by the mere matter of dollars and cents involved. Cf. Schwartz v. … The term "assessments" as read in the context therein clearly means municipal charges and not the value of land subject to taxation.