§Why CasetextPricing

Winner v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation

REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

13 Cited authorities

  1. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.

    528 U.S. 167 (2000)   Cited 7,153 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

  2. Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

    568 U.S. 85 (2013)   Cited 1,373 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Nike's unilateral covenant not to sue mooted Already's trademark invalidity claim

  3. Hedges v. Musco

    204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 874 times
    Holding that District Courts "must" decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."

  4. City News Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha

    531 U.S. 278 (2001)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that challenge to adult business licensing determination was moot where plaintiff "has ceased to operate as an adult business and no longer seeks to renew its license"

  5. John T. ex Rel. Paul T. v. Delaware County

    318 F.3d 545 (3d Cir. 2003)   Cited 239 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a valid court order is among the prerequisites to a contempt finding

  6. Medical Society of New Jersey v. Herr

    191 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. 2002)   Cited 70 times
    Distinguishing factual challenge from facial challenge by stating that "factual 12(b) motion . . . calls into question the essential facts underlying a claim of subject matter jurisdiction"

  7. Stan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    No. 99-CV-0653 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2000)   Cited 34 times
    Holding that plaintiff did not have standing when "there [were] no allegations of ongoing discrimination" as "the complaint allege[d] only discrete instances of discrimination in the past"

  8. Houston v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

    Case No. 13-60004-Civ-SCOLA (S.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Finding that defendant's actions were "motivated by a genuine desire to conscientiously comply with the ADA's architectural requirements" in part because "[the defendant] acted without delay to bring the [store] into full compliance with the ADA"

  9. Thomas v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

    32 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (N.D. Ga. 2014)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that defendant's likelihood of returning to discriminatory practice was highly unlikely based on the modification of installed equipment and machinery

  10. A.S. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ.

    66 F. Supp. 3d 539 (D.N.J. 2014)   Cited 6 times

    Civil No. 14–147 (NLH/KMW). 2014-12-11 A.S., Plaintiff, v. HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. Jamie Epstein, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiff. Caroline Genett Jones, State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants. HILLMAN Jamie Epstein, Cherry Hill, NJ, for Plaintiff. Caroline Genett Jones, State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, for Defendants. OPINION HILLMAN, District Judge. Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendants, Christopher Cerf and the New Jersey Department

  11. Section 5:14A-9.8 - Control of operation

    N.J. Admin. Code § 5:14A-9.8   Cited 4 times

    (a) All amusement rides shall have an operating manual. The owner of an amusement ride shall operate the ride in accordance with the manufacturer's operating manual. In the absence of a manufacturer's operating manual, the owner shall write an approved operating manual. Where any conflict occurs between the operating manual and this chapter, this chapter shall govern. The operating manual shall be kept at the site where the ride is in use and shall be available for use by the Department. (b) The

  12. Section 5:14A-9.34 - Warning sign

    N.J. Admin. Code § 5:14A-9.34

    (a) On major or super rides that expose a rider to high speed, substantial centrifugal force or a high degree of excitement, the owner shall post a conspicuous warning sign at the entrance of the ride advising the public of the potential risk to riders. (b) The signs required shall be in sharply contrasting colors and be legible to a person of normal vision standing at a point of entrance to the ride. (c) The sign required by this section shall read as follows or express an equivalent warning: "Normal