Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

6 Citing briefs

  1. Turner Envirologic, Inc. v. Pseg Fossil Llc

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed February 10, 2017

    A trial court should deny summary judgment if the non-moving party presents evidence that supports a genuine issue of material fact. Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 529. "It [is] not the court's function to weigh the evidence and determine the outcome but only to decide if a material dispute of fact existed."

  2. Anderson et al v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Co.

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed July 10, 2017

    Because plaintiffs have no evidence to establish otherwise, they have failed to meet their burden, which is to provide evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. See Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995). Accordingly, the Court should grant State Farm’s motion and dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint with prejudice.

  3. Carney v. Lennar Corporation

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed July 7, 2017

    Lennar has not brought a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Therefore, Plaintiff’s reliance on Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995) is misplaced and her arguments are inapposite. Perhaps Plaintiff was confused because Lennar introduced facts outside the record.

  4. Sterling v. Major et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed January 25, 2017

    LEGAL ARGUMENTS I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Summary Judgment is appropriate under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only upon: 1) “proper showings of the lack of a genuine, tribal issue of material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986); and 2) entitlement of the moving party to judgment “as a matter of law,” F.R.C.P. 56(c) since neither condition is met in this case, defendant’s summary judgment motion must fail. The governing standard for granting summary judgment provides that a court should grant summary judgment when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” R.4: 46-2(c), Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 528-529, 540 (1995). (hereinafter Brill) Case 1:14-cv-03928-JBS-JS Document 130 Filed 01/25/17 Page 8 of 42 PageID: 1802 3 In Brill, the Court adopted the summary judgment approach used by the Federal Courts in Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed 2d 538 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 303 (1986) ; and Celotex, 477 U.S. 317.

  5. Nelson Lebron, Appellant,v.SML Veteran Leather, LLC, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed February 12, 2014

    LEXIS 2018 [App. Div. 2010]). The facts must be analyzed in a light most favorable to plaintiff as the non-moving party, and plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of all inferences that can be derived therefrom (Brill v. Guardian Life, 142 NJ 520, 523 [1995]). Plaintiff must establish that the employer evidenced an intent to injure (Mabee v. Borden, 316 NJ Super. 218, 227 [App. Div. 1998] or knew his actions were “substantially certain to” result in injury or death (Holck v. PHA, 2010 NJ Super. Unpub.

  6. Lomando v. United States of America

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 8, 2010

    Judson, supra, 17 N.J. at 74; see also, Maher v. New Jersey Transit R.O., 125 N.J. 455 (1991), Shanlevand Fisher, P.C. v. Sisselman, 215 N.J. Super. 200,211 (App. Div. 1987). Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Brill v. The Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 520 (1995) held: UnderR4:46-2, when deciding Summary Judgment Motions, trial courts are required to engage in the same type of evaluation analysis or sifting of evidential materials as required by R. 4:37-2(b) in light of the burden of persuasion that applies if the matter goes to trial. . . .