Case law

In Re Gabapentin Patent Litigation

649 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2009

Warner-Lambert is entitled to such immunity unless Purepac can establish that the Capsule and Tablet Lawsuits were “sham litigation.” … According to Warner-Lambert, a series of earlier rulings clearly establish that the infringement claims concerning the '476 and '479 Patents were not unreasonable, thereby also establishing the existence of probable cause

Ruvolo v. US Steel Corp.

139 N.J. Super. 578 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 12, 1976

In return, the act immunizes the employer in such cases from tort liability. … Its courts, however, permit indemnification where a defendant tortfeasor can establish that his own negligence was only "passive," whereas the negligence of a joint tortfeasor was "active."

Washington National Insurance v. Board of Review of New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Commission

1 N.J. 545 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 7, 1949

A constitution is to be given a prospective operation only, unless an intention to make it retrospective is clearly revealed in the legislative expression. San Antonio v. San Antonio Public Service Co., 255 U. … Appellant contends that if the vitiating clause “exclusive of life insurance agents” be exscinded, the subsection of the statute will be free of legal infirmity and should be effectuated as so qualified. *556 But the excision

O'BRYANT v. THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANANCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time … right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.

Cali v. New Jersey State Commission of Investigation

63 N.J. 310 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 5, 1973

Leshowitz was later granted immunity by the Commission (N. J. S. A. 52:9M-17) and as a result any suggestion of confidentiality grounded on the writing clearly has no substance. Mr. … Immunity was forthcoming and any confidentiality by virtue of the agreements was clearly removed. There were oral statements by Mr.

Ruprecht v. Ruprecht

252 N.J. Super. 230 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1991

Noting that the court had abolished in an earlier case the rule of interspousal immunity in actions asserting intentional torts, defendant argued that where no physical injury is alleged, there should be immunity. … Division of property by degree of fault has clearly been disallowed in this state absent a showing of exceptional circumstances ...

Cranford Development Associates, LLC v. Township of Cranford

445 N.J. Super. 220 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 26, 2016

Clearly, the Township had no intention of ever allowing affordable housing to be constructed on the CDA site. … The court's authority to appoint Special Masters in Mount Laurel cases is well established. See Mount Laurel II, supra, 92 N.J. at 282-85.

In Re Manna

124 N.J. Super. 428 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 3, 1973

The contention that the statute establishing the S.C.I. ( N.J.S.A. 52:9M-1 et seq. ) offends Art. … The title clearly suggests that the object of the legislation is to create a temporary investigation agency.

Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States

52 F. Supp. 211 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 1943

It is well established that the United States may not be sued without its consent, and where, as here, the sovereign immunity is waived by statute, the statute must be strictly construed. … The cause in which the statute is invoked must be clearly within its provisions. Ibid. The facts upon which the present cause of action is founded are recited in the third 1 paragraph of the libel.

M.A. v. J.H.M.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 2025

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” … United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951), and to require him to answer if “it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.” Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 899 (1881).

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citation omitted). … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Suri v. Foxx

69 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2014

precludes a Bivens claim against all named defendants except those sued as individuals; d) qualified immunity precludes a Bivens claim against those defendants sued as individuals; e) respondeat superior liability does not … Plaintiff has clearly stated that he applied — either formally or through informal verbal request — for a permanent position with the FAA that would constitute employment, not a contractor position like the one he already

CP v. Piscataway Tp. Bd. of Educ.

293 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 15, 1996

In his oral opinion he stated: Clearly had there been any prior incidents or knowledge it would have been brought to the Court's attention. … Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, any property held in a qualifying trust and any distributions from a qualifying trust, regardless of the distribution plan elected for the qualifying trust,

Pelaez v. Rugby Laboratories, Inc.

264 N.J. Super. 450 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1993

The court concludes that at the time plaintiff sustained his injury as a result of treatment following a recreational activity Integrity House was promoting its charitable purposes and that plaintiff clearly was a beneficiary … property for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering and constraint, by assisting them to establish

Fox v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills

199 N.J. Super. 82 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 1985

Plaintiffs are clearly wrong. … With regard to the immunity afforded by N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(d), the Supreme Court held that the public entity bears the burden of demonstrating resource allocation immunity.

Raniero v. Antun

943 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1996

Raniero’s attempt to establish a job placement program at Emerson High School failed. Kovacs Cert., ¶ 4. … RaMe-ro’s sole effort to establish a job placement program failed. Kovacs Cert., ¶ 4. Highton testified the failure occurred because RaMero did not follow the “gMdelines” Highton established for the program. Id.

Saponaro v. Grindr, LLC

93 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2015

To establish a cause of action for negligence in New Jersey, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant, (3) actual and … Plaintiff asserts that “the defendants [sic] must clearly have foreseen the potential for use by minors.” (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 14.)

Strauss v. Township of Holmdel

312 N.J. Super. 610 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 1997

Plaintiffs conceded, at oral argument, that they do not fall within a suspect class (e.g. race or religion), nor a semi-suspect class (i.e. involving a fundamental right), and therefore do not qualify for consideration under … The allegations that the planning board negligently granted site plan approval without requiring the installation of a sewer line, and that the board of health wrongly issued permits for the septic systems, clearly fall within

KOYI v. BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 2023

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] government officials performing discretionary functions ... … A court hearing a claim to qualified immunity must determine both whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged

Memory Bowl v. North Pointe Insurance

280 F.R.D. 181 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

“Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786 (quoting Publisher Indus. v. … As the party asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, North Pointe bears the burden of proving that the materials at issue qualify for protection from disclosure. Conoco, Inc. v. U.S.