Case law

Johnson v. Johnson

411 N.J. Super. 161 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 21, 2009

However, the acts are similar in that neither is immune to public policy concerns. Mt. Hope Dev. Assoc. v. Mt. Hope Waterpower Project, 154 N.J. 141, 149 , 712 A. 2d 180 (1998). In Mt. … Custody and parenting time clearly implicate public policies that require more expansive review than N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13 allows.

BEY v. COMBS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2025

)(2)(B) requires courts to review the complaint and dismiss claims that: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In the event Plaintiff believes that he is able to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, he may file an amended complaint that clearly sets forth the basis for the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, including

Mount Olive Complex v. Township of Mount Olive

356 N.J. Super. 500 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 2003

The Board designated Budd Lake and certain other sections of the Township as qualifying "centers," but not plaintiffs property. Id. at 523 , 774 A. 2d 704 . … II); that is, to modify or terminate a Mount Laurel consent degree a municipality "`must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and the proposed modification is suitably tailored

Neuner v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (In re Lymecare, Inc.)

301 B.R. 662 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2003

FEHBP is clearly a “governmental plan” excluded from ERISA requirements. B. Preemption. … The cited regulation clearly prohibits suit against the carriers or the carriers’ subcontractors in lieu of the OPM.

FIRST RESPONSE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 4, 2022

The State and Kazar have not waived immunity in this Court by failing to raise an immunity that was not available in state court. See S.C. ex rel. C.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of Educ, 248 F. … Next, the court in Kaul found it well established that “New Jersey has a strong interest in regulating the medical profession and censuring physicians who are a danger to public health and safety.” 372 F.

Citizens' Committee for Environmental Protection v. United States Coast Guard

456 F. Supp. 101 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 9, 1978

The plaintiffs’ only attempt to address the sovereign immunity argument occurred during oral argument in this case. … The proposed highway segment will serve three major functions which clearly establish independent utility.

BOWMAN v. Hackensack Hospital Assoc.

116 N.J. Super. 260 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1971

The court notes that in the case at bar the evidence clearly establishes that "goals and negotiations involving the unit" have been and will be determined solely by members of the unit. … There is no doubt that the faculty nurses at the hospital went to the Association for assistance, and the testimony clearly establishes, and the court finds, that the Association did not come into the hospital and "organize

Peper v. Princeton University Board of Trustees

77 N.J. 55 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1978

Defining the burden a plaintiff must meet to establish a prima facie case of discrimination is a delicate task. … The gist of McDonnell-Douglas is that an employee who is a member of a protected group and who is qualified for hiring or promotion may not be rejected for any reason other than the fact that another seemingly qualified individual

LAWSON v. PRAXAIR, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2021

Moreover, the plain language of the NJPSA does not require a patient’s injury to be established before invoking the privilege. … Supp. 3d 610, 621 (D.N.J. 2015) (“A party asserting a legislative privilege . . . bears the burden of establishing the applicability of legislative immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.”)

Wene v. Meyner

13 N.J. 185 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 1953

The irregularities pleaded must be sufficient, if established by proof, to warrant the relief sought. … (Emphasis supplied) Clearly this requirement of the statute is directed both to the prospective voter and the district election board.

Organon, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

244 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 18, 2002

“It must be established that the defendant possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement and not merely that the defendant had knowledge of the acts alleged to constitute inducement. … This is clearly distinguishable from the present case, as there is a significant market for non-infringing uses of mirtazapine. As for intent, the Omeprazole court relied on Mendenhall v.

ENGLISH v. KAPLAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2023

The Appellate Division affirmed that English could not establish that any of the defendants owed her a cognizable duty, and that English “failed to establish the claimed reduction in her income was proximally caused by … Here, English has not met her burden of establishing third party standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.

State v. Jamel Carlton

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 19, 2025

The far-ranging trial proofs that might be needed to establish a defendant's membership in a criminal organization for purposes of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(i) stand in stark contrast to the simple proofs needed to establish that … Clearly, the commentary in the 1971 Final Report presupposed that a defendant has no constitutional right to have the sentencing issue decided by a jury.

Point Pleasant Pba v. Point Pleasant

412 N.J. Super. 328 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 24, 2010

In construing paragraph (c), the Supreme Court has stated: This Court previously has defined three general categories of cases that qualify for the "interest of justice" exception: "cases involving (1) important and novel … Brice, 109 N.J. 555, 560 , 538 A. 2d 362 (1988) (establishing standard of review as abuse of discretion).

PEARSON v. SWEENEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2020

§ 1915(a), which establishes his financial eligibility to proceed IFP and will be granted. … Plaintiff does not clearly present the chronological events that led to his assault by another inmate nor does he describe the assault or when it occurred.

Utley v. Board of Review, Department of Labor

194 N.J. 534 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 15, 2008

Clearly, Utley did all that was “‘necessary and reasonable in order to remain employed.’ ” Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 214 , 704 A.2d 547 (1997) (quoting Heulitt v. … Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 , 658 A.2d 1230 (1995) (“A trial court’s interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference.”).

Karlin v. Weinberg

77 N.J. 408 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 1978

Eq. at 191, the recitation of the general rule clearly demonstrates that restrictive covenants would be enforceable upon a showing that they provided needed protection to the covenantee without interfering with the interest … If [plaintiff] lias built up a practice so large that he is unable to take care of it without the aid of qualified assistants, he is entitled to the emoluments thereof, and to be protected against the loss of those emoluments

GARRETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2021

if it finds that the action: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … June 8, 2020) (one internal citation omitted). 2 Plaintiff has had at least three qualifying dismissals: Garrett v. Murphy, No. 20-5235 (D.N.J.

United Rubber Workers, Local 102 v. Lee Rubber & Tire Corp.

269 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 16, 1967

This argument as to Local 102 is clearly without merit. There is, however, some question as to the application of the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement with Local 227. … This arises because of what would seem to be the qualifying language “then in effect.”

WORTHY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 28, 2023

Aug. 12, 2016) (“[T]he Third Circuit has long held that the DOH is an arm of the State of New Jersey for sovereign immunity purposes.”).15 Yet Plaintiff has not established that any of the exceptions to sovereign … immunity apply here.