Case law

Township Committee of Denville v. Board of Education

59 N.J. 143 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 1971

As a result, the Board concluded that establishment of a vocational school facility was imperative. … A. 40:55—39 from the bar to establishment of its school in the 1-2 zone.

Jones v. St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church

7 N.J. 533 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1951

This qualified immunity doctrine was also affirmed in Boeckel v. Orange Memorial Hospital, 108 N. J. L. 453 (Sup. *538 Ct. 1932), affirmed 110 N. J. L. 509 (E. & A. 1933); Bianchi v. … Further as to the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the immunity rule does not extend to acts or omissions constituting administrative negligence, we are asked thereby to modify the established common law rule in this State.

Chaddock v. Vanness

35 N.J.L. 517 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1871

The evidence offered in each case was to establish the fact that the endorsement to the plaintiffs was without consideration. Hill v. … it, with the understanding of all the parties that his endorsement would be inoporative until it was endorsed by the payee, he would then be liable only as a second endorser, in the commercial sense, and, as such, would clearly

Beauchamp v. Amedio

164 N.J. 111 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 8, 2000

Ellin to ascertain whether Beauchamp’s injuries would qualify her for non-economic damages in a suit against the State under the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A 59:1-1 to 59:13-10. On April 8, 1997, the attorney received Dr. … I In 1972, in response to the judicial abrogation of sovereign immunity in Willis v. Department of Cons. & Econ.

In Re Ippolito

75 N.J. 435 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 22, 1978

Such immunity was not granted although the SCI had statutory power to grant “use and fruits” immunity 2 from criminal prosecution or penalty. N. J. S. … The Appellate Division held that more must be established before a determination of self-incrimination can be made.

Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co.

104 N.J. 125 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1986

Privileges may be “absolute,” which means that the statements are completely immune, or “qualified.” … C In traditional defamation analysis, one difference between absolute and qualified privileges is that an absolute privilege grants complete immunity to the publisher, but a qualified privilege accords immunity only if the

Jordan v. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n

90 N.J. 422 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 1982

No other “programs designed to aid the horsemen” receive money under the statutory provisions, and no statute or regulation indicates how such programs might qualify for funding if established. … Furthermore, given the structure of the statutory system, NJHBPA clearly enjoys certain advantages.

Velez v. City of Jersey City

180 N.J. 284 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 2004

If proven, [defendant’s] actions would qualify as the type of outrageous conduct sought to be excluded from the protections of the Act by N.J.S.A 59:3-14. … from suit under the ‘inspection’ immunities of the Act.”

Collins v. Union County Jail

150 N.J. 407 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 15, 1997

That statute establishes a rule of absolute immunity when the threshold requirement is not met for certain categories of injuries. … Clearly such an indifference does not exist, as evidenced by legislation defining personal injury so as to include psychological harm.

Foldi v. Jeffries

93 N.J. 533 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 1983

Our decision in Small clearly reaffirmed our general disapproval of the parental immunity doctrine in France : The reasoning and tenor of Justice Proctor’s opinion in France ... leave no room for doubt that he and those who … And unlike an intentional tort, “wanton or willful misconduct does not require the establishment of a positive intent to injure.” Tabor v. O’Grady, 61 N.J.Super. 446, 451 (App.Div.1960).

CIVALIER BY CIVALIER v. Estate of Trancucci

138 N.J. 52 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1994

Thus, because the Court qualified its ruling in Hoy by emphasizing the absence of reliance by either driver, the codification of Hoy does not automatically bar suit against the public bodies in this case. B. … Whereas Weiss concerned the initial implementation of the discretionary decision to place a traffic signal at a railroad crossing, for which N.J.S.A. 59:4-5 clearly immunizes public entities, see Kolitch, supra, 100 N.J.

McCabe v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority

35 N.J. 26 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 8, 1961

the statute clearly so states. … We conclude that plaintiffs did establish a prima facie case.

Buono v. Scalia

179 N.J. 131 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 29, 2004

The parent is clearly in the best position to know the limitations and capabilities of his or her own children. These intangibles cannot be adequately conveyed within the formal atmosphere of a courtroom. … It is further well-established that "[w]hen ... a rule is the product of a conceptualism long ago discarded, is universally criticized by scholars, and has been qualified or abandoned in many jurisdictions, it should receive

Fluehr v. City of Cape May

159 N.J. 532 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 26, 1999

In effect, this provision contemplates both qualified immunity and limited liability in respect of the supervision over public property. … As illustrated by the *1050 facts in Tice , the Tice rule establishes the predominance of sovereign immunity when the bases of both liability and immunity derive from the same injurious conduct.

Schultz v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark

95 N.J. 530 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 19, 1984

to modify the established common law rule in this State. … The purpose of the second section was not to add another species of wrongful conduct that would qualify for the immunity, namely, entity or managerial negligence as opposed to employee-servant negligence.

Marcinczyk v. STATE POLICE TRAINING COM'N

203 N.J. 586 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 18, 2010

Div.2003) ("[t]hese immunities, so stoutly re-established by the Legislature, cannot be thwarted or waived other than by a legislative enactment of equal dignity"), so are they barred from granting themselves greater immunity … Rather, the legislative history to the TCA reveals the distinctly different, focused purpose to broadly assert sovereign immunity, to have the exceptions to the re-establishment of immunity interpreted narrowly and in favor

New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority v. Gruzen Partnership

125 N.J. 66 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 22, 1991

When analyzing the enabling statute of an entity, “it may be said to be a fundamental rule of construction that what is not clearly granted by the state is withheld and that statutes permitting suits against the state, being … Hence, we believe that the fairest course to all is to adhere to the principles of decision that this Court established in Willis and P T & L Construction Co.

Allen v. Fauver

167 N.J. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 10, 2001

New Jersey Highway Auth., 22 N.J. 454, 466-67 , 126 A.2d 313 (1956) (stating that “[t]he doctrine that the State may not be sued in our courts without its consent is firmly established in our jurisprudence”); Gallena v. … to divest the state or its government of any of its prerogatives, rights, or remedies, unless the intention of the Legislature to effect such object is clearly expressed in the statute’ ”) (quoting New Jersey Interstate

Marcinczyk v. State of New Jersey Police Training Commission

203 N.J. 586 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 18, 2010

for their negligence within the limitations of this [A]ct and in accordance with the fair and uniform principles established herein.” … Taylor Mills Developers, Inc., 357 N.J.Super. 446, 453 , 815 A.2d 988 (App.Div.2003) (“[t]hese immunities, so stoutly re-established by the Legislature, cannot be thwarted or waived other than by a legislative enactment of

PV Ex Rel. TV v. Camp Jaycee

197 N.J. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 24, 2008

In 1995, the Legislature again amended the Act, extending immunity to a broad class of persons in response to concerns that charities were having trouble finding qualified people who were willing to serve on their boards … Second, that statement clearly identifies the public policies and the underlying purpose for the doctrine.