Case law

HINES v. VERIZON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS

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

Such attachments clearly do not constitute a “short and plain statement” showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief and thus mandate dismissal in violation of Rule 8. See Roy v. … Plaintiff fails to allege a nexus between Defendant’s alleged conduct and the state to qualify Defendant as a state actor.”

Floorgraphics, Inc. v. News America Marketing In-Store Services, Inc.

546 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 2008

Wills clearly does not have “thin” qualifications. On the contrary, Mr. Wills qualifications should not even be at issue. … McLaughlin, although intermittently qualified in the field of store marketing, failed to use an acceptable methodology to establish causation in this business torts case.

Showalter v. Barilari, Inc.

312 N.J. Super. 494 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 1998

There are exceptions to the rule, but clearly, none of those exceptions apply here. … qualified witness.”

Seilheimer v. Seilheimer

40 N.J. Eq. 412 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Oct 15, 1885

in any case, where it is clearly shown that an innocent man has been fraudulently entrapped into a marriage with a woman whom he believed to be pure, but who was, in fact, at the time of their marriage, incapable of contracting … But a husband, to be qualified to ask relief of this nature-against the woman whom he has taken as his wife, must be pure, himself — pure, at least, so far as she is concerned. Carris v. Carris, 9 C. E.

Abdullah v. SB Thomas, Inc.

190 N.J. Super. 26 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 1983

Clearly, that logic still applies, except that in order to *30 encourage hiring of workers with preexisting disabilities the employer now gets credit for the "previous loss of function." … N.J.S.A. 34:15-12(d), as amended, in pertinent part reads: If previous loss of function to the body ... is established by competent evidence, and subsequently an injury ... arising out of and in the course of an employment

State v. Ernst

230 N.J. Super. 238 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 1989

We have carefully considered these contentions and all of the arguments advanced by defendant in support of them and find that they are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Here, the breathalyzer was stipulated to be in proper working order, and Officer Smith was qualified to operate the breathalyzer.

Todd v. Northeastern Poultry, Etc., Inc.

9 N.J. Super. 348 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1950

The inquiry now passes to the effect in law of these established facts. … It was, thus, a radical departure from the usual and long-established routine of his work, and falls clearly within the category of a compensable accident. Franklin v. U.S. Bronze Powder Works, supra .

Bistricer v. Bistricer

231 N.J. Super. 143 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 14, 1987

[I]t is not necessary for a writing to contain every possible contractual provision to cover every contingency in order to qualify as a completed binding agreement. … The court is satisfied that the bargain "clearly was struck." Pascarella v. Bruck, supra, 190 N.J. Super. at 126 .

Young v. Malcolm

568 F. Supp. 839 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 2, 1983

“charitable immunity” doctrine except for allowing recovery of a maximum of $10,000 to beneficiaries, to whatever degree, as the result of any one accident. … In the present case, Jacobson clearly does not apply by its own terms. The complaint charges the two doctors, Dr. Braun and Dr.

Application of Strait

120 N.J. 477 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 1990

The Conference Panel heard the testimony and reports of several highly qualified experts on substance addiction. … Greenfield concluded, from a psychiatric and substance-abuse perspective, that Strait was qualified to practice law.

Boody v. Township of Cherry Hill

997 F. Supp. 562 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 1997

This evidence, however, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, does not establish a constitutional violation. … In response to the Cherry Hill Defendants’ motion, plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of his property interest in continued employment, qualified immunity of the individual defendants, and Moffett

In Re Grant of Charter School Application

320 N.J. Super. 174 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1999

The State Board cites legislative history to support the view that "parents" need not have children in the district to qualify as founders. … By those measures, the Court concluded, the county board (HCBT) "clearly" had standing. Id. at 492 , 628 A. 2d 288 .

DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY OF STATE v. Cruz

45 N.J. 372 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 8, 1965

A. 34:11-56.1 to 56.11, and particularly statutes declaring the public policy of the State to be the establishment of a prevailing wage scale for workmen engaged in public works in order to protect them and their employers … But when a later expression of the legislative will is so clearly in conflict with an earlier statute relating to the same subject that the two cannot stand together reasonably, the courts have no hesitancy in finding a legislative

Szczesny v. Vasquez

71 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 2, 1962

Super., at page 570 , the notice provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:6-65 could not more clearly be expressed. … The doctrine of *359 liberal construction relates to the scope of the legislation and not to the proof or the evidence necessary to establish compliance with its terms and conditions.

NJ Dept. of Env. Prot. v. Gloucester Env. Mgt.

719 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 17, 1989

The Supreme Court has established three requisites for applying a decision only prospectively: (1) The holding must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied … The court dismissed EPA from this action because sovereign immunity barred the claim against it. A sovereign immunity defense is something more than a claim of no subject matter jurisdiction.

Acevedo v. Monsignor Donovan High School

420 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 2006

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA, G. … Unless an individual qualifies as a plaintiffs “employer” as defined above, the ADEA does not provide for individual liability. See Holo-check v.

Valdes v. New Jersey State Bd. of Medical Examiners

205 N.J. Super. 398 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 1985

Even absent this statutory mandate, Valdes asserts that he is entitled to a hearing, as a matter of due process, to establish his qualifications for licensure. … Moreover, we find that all of the issues of law raised are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).

Statham v. Bush

253 N.J. Super. 607 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1992

Siwek and plaintiff for the jury to conclude that plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident, they failed to produce a witness who could establish which of plaintiff's injuries would have been avoided … objection and qualify Mr.

FERMAINTT EX REL. ESTATE OF LAWLOR v. McWane, Inc.

694 F. Supp. 2d 339 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 2010

In establishing the level of egregious conduct that amounts to an “intentional wrong,” the court created a two-prong test: a conduct and context prong. … As such, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ conduct equates to an intentional wrong under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to qualify for removal of the bar from suit.

SHIH v. UNITED COUNTIES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2024

To establish a prima facie claim under the ECOA, a plaintiff must show that he (i) was a member of a protected class; (ii) applied for credit from defendant; (iii) was qualified for the credit; and (iv) was denied credit … First, nowhere in Plaintiff’s pleading does he clearly allege that his business9 qualified for the specific loan sought from Defendant. (See generally Am. Compl.).