District Court, D. New Jersey — appointed by Richard Nixon
George v. New Jersey Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1985-11-27 · cited 13×
The case involved a plaintiff whose application for a veterinary license was denied by the New Jersey Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners after he was found to have improperly removed a file from the Board's office; he sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging national origin discrimination by the Board in its licensing process. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Board was not an "employer" or "employment agency" subject to Title VII. The reasoning centered on the statutory definitions in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, which limit those terms to entities involved in direct employment relationships or procuring employment, and on precedents distinguishing state licensing agencies exercising regulatory police powers (such as bar examiners) from covered employers, even after the 1972 amendments extending Title VII to state employees.
civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power
Franklin v. Heckler
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984-12-04 · cited 7×
The case involved plaintiff Mary Franklin's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability beginning in July 1976 due to various medical conditions including arthritis, hypertension, and neurological issues. The administrative law judge determined that her disability began in January 1982, after her insured status for disability benefits had expired on June 30, 1980, resulting in denial of insurance benefits entirely and SSI benefits prior to 1982. On review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court examined the medical evidence, primarily five reports from 1979 examinations that provided conflicting diagnoses and disability ratings often in connection with a workers' compensation claim, and noted that these reports warranted little weight because they appeared geared toward a different legal standard and showed inconsistencies across multiple doctors. The court referenced legal standards requiring reversal for errors in applying regulations or failing to observe appropriate legal standards in disability determinations.
healthcarefederal power
United States v. Gambino
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984-11-19 · cited 11×
This case involved a federal criminal prosecution of multiple defendants, including Rosario Gambino, for conspiracy to distribute heroin based on meetings, intercepted calls, vehicle movements, and sales to undercover agents. The court ruled that the government had shown by a fair preponderance of independent evidence each defendant's membership in the conspiracy, permitting admission of co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). After excusing one juror for cause during extended deliberations, the court decided to proceed with eleven jurors under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(b) instead of declaring a mistrial or substituting an alternate, citing the six-week trial duration and over twenty hours of prior jury deliberation as well as the defendants' opposition to a mistrial.
criminal lawprocedure
Noto v. United States
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984-09-21 · cited 13×
In Noto v. United States, plaintiff Louis Noto sought a refund of minimum tax assessed by the IRS on his 1978 gambling losses from horse racing, claiming the losses were deductible above the line as attributable to a trade or business under IRC Sections 62(1) and 162(a). Noto devoted substantial time to studying races and betting solely for his own account, winning over $97,000 but deducting losses to the extent of winnings under Section 165. The court applied the Third Circuit's "goods or services" test, derived from Deputy v. du Pont, which requires that a taxpayer hold himself out to others as providing goods or services for activities to qualify as a trade or business. Because Noto never offered services to others, the court concluded his gambling was not a trade or business and thus constituted an item of tax preference subject to minimum tax under Sections 56 and 57.
taxesbusiness & regulatory
Bernstein v. Poskanzer (In Re Poskanzer)
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984-06-25 · cited 3×
In this case, creditor Jordan Bernstein appealed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of his complaint, which sought a determination that a debt owed by debtor Maria Poskanzer in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing was nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court had set a deadline of April 15, 1983, for filing such complaints after granting an extension, but Bernstein's complaint was filed on May 9, 1983. The court dismissed the complaint as untimely, rejecting the argument that counsel's misunderstanding with co-counsel or strategic decision amounted to excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1). The district court reviewed the record and affirmed the dismissal, holding that unilateral inadvertence or negligence by an attorney does not qualify as excusable neglect.
procedure
Noto v. United States
District Court, D. New Jersey · 1984-06-06
In Noto v. United States, taxpayer Louis Noto sought a refund of minimum tax assessed on his 1978 gambling losses, which the IRS had treated as an itemized deduction rather than an above-the-line deduction from gross income. Noto argued that his extensive gambling activities constituted a trade or business under IRC Sections 62(1) and 162(a), while the government moved for summary judgment on the ground that they did not because Noto never held himself out as offering goods or services to others. The court analyzed two competing standards for defining trade or business—the facts-and-circumstances approach and the goods-or-services threshold test—observing that the undisputed facts showed Noto wagered only for his own account and that adoption of the latter test would eliminate any genuine issue of material fact.
taxesbusiness & regulatory