Case law

Nl Industries, Inc. v. State(076550)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 27, 2017

A legislative waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed clearly and unambiguously, and a retroactive waiver of sovereign immunity requires the clearest of expression. (pp. 20-23) 5. … In other words, a legislative waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed clearly and unambiguously, Allen v.

Marshall v. Klebanov

188 N.J. 23 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 2006

The dissent argued that the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously applies to plaintiff's situation, thereby abrogating the common law and precluding liability. … Because the trial court never ruled on whether plaintiff alleged sufficient evidence under the common law to establish *883 such claims, we remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. V.

Nicholas v. Mynster

213 N.J. 463 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 25, 2013

N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41 clearly applies to the medical-malpractice action in this case. How it applies is the question that the parties have debated before this Court. … In addition to diagnosing and treating illness, they also provide preventive care, including routine checkups, health-risk assessments, immunization and screening tests, and personalized counseling on maintaining a healthy

Olesiewicz v. City of Camden

100 N.J.L. 336 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 20, 1924

“After careful consideration, my conclusion is that the general rule established by the line of cases referred to is not applicable to the facts present in this instance, and that whenever an indictment will not lie for such … The facts of the instant case fall clearly within the application of the principle, as expressed, in the two cases above referred to.

Toto v. Sheriff's Officer Ensuar

196 N.J. 134 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 2008

of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Sovereign Immunity, 216-17 (1972)) (alteration in original). … The failure to instruct the jury that the good faith defense did not apply to plaintiffs claim for false arrest/false imprisonment was clearly erroneous.

State v. James

96 N.J.L. 132 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 20, 1921

This is not a declaratory, but a remedial, statute, and clearly indicates that women had to be qualified by legislative enactment in order to be summoned, and to serve, oil juries in this state. … Upon this whole matter we are clearly of opinion that the judgment under review should be affirmed.

State v. Tamburro

68 N.J. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 21, 1975

The trial court found him to be eminently qualified in this field. Dr. … However, participation in such a program does not immunize a person from application of the statute.

Stigliano v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc.

140 N.J. 305 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 31, 1995

Plaintiffs also contend that defendants must qualify the treating doctors as experts before the doctors may testify about causation. … This testimony was clearly relevant and material. To bar- such testimony of the initial treating physicians would only serve to hinder the search for truth. [Id. at 592, 630 A.2d 355 .]

S.E.W. Friel Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority

73 N.J. 107 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 20, 1977

On the other hand, the Turnpike Authority clearly fits under the definition of “Public entities”, namely as a public authority. … We are satisfied that the Turnpike Authority is clearly within the purview of the Act.

Smith v. Fireworks by Girone, Inc.

180 N.J. 199 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 2004

Therefore, in balancing the liability and immunity provisions of the TCA, “immunity is the rule and liability the exception.” Posey ex rel. Posey v. … Clearly, then, there is no support for the notion that Deptford became the title owner of the errant firework within the meaning of N.J.S.A . 59:4-1.

Cali v. NJ STATE COMM. OF INVEST.

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.

Dixon v. Rutgers, the State University of NJ

110 N.J. 432 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 25, 1988

This legislative action clearly shows the intent to eliminate discrimination in all of the State's universities, be they public or private. … We are satisfied that Dixon demonstrated her ability to establish a prima facie case.

McGlynn v. Grosso

114 N.J.L. 540 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1935

The question is not so much as to Grosso’s title as touching that of McGlynn; for if he was lawfully appointed and qualified, that disposes of any claim on the part of Gro'sso. … As he was immune to attack until that date, it may be that either resolution, or both, could have been challenged by certiorari. No such challenge seems to have been made.

Weinberg v. Dinger

106 N.J. 469 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 2, 1987

Jeffries, 93 N.J. 533 (1983) (parental immunity); Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535 (1978) (interspousal immunity); Willis v. … Rejecting the subrogation claims, the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted: Clearly, if the respondents were allowed to recover from the city, they would in a sense be recouping their losses from their insureds.

Avant v. Clifford

67 N.J. 496 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 23, 1975

So here, fairness and rightness clearly dictate the granting of the prisoner’s request for a statement of reasons. … for the establishment of guilt of the offense involved.

In re Giannini

212 N.J. 479 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 7, 2012

GIANNINI having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined; And the Court having considered respondent’s arguments and having fully reviewed the record established in the proceedings … Township Committee of Middletown, we again stated clearly and unequivocally that “[t]he litigation privilege does not immunize an attorney from disciplinary sanctions under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.” 185

Victoria Crisitello v. St. Theresa School 085213)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 14, 2023

fact concerning the defendant’s status for immunity. … her termination, defendant sought similarly qualified individuals for that job.

Costa v. Josey

79 N.J. 535 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 17, 1979

Subparagraphs b, c, and d are signposts to the nature of immunized discretionary determinations. Some decisions are clearly within the scope of the immunity. … The act establishes sovereign immunity for governmental bodies except where otherwise provided.

State v. Fass

36 N.J. 102 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 6, 1961

of religion" or as establishing or tending to establish "one religious sect in preference to another." … Clearly the conduct of defendant's business as described above would have rendered the immunity inapplicable prior to 1959.

Wilentz v. Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures

118 N.J.L. 20 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 13, 1937

The Morris Canal and Banking Corporation, in which the Society filed a bill for the purpose of establishing its right to all the waters of the Passaic river, at Paterson, and to restrain defendant, &c., from in anywise diverting … True it is that in each of the cited eases the grounds here urged were raised collaterally only, but a careful reading of the opinion in each case clearly demonstrates that the attack on the Society’s right to prevent water