Case law

Chatman v. Hall

128 N.J. 394 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 29, 1992

The use of the words “any immunity of the public employee provided by law ” was clearly calculated. … Its primary function is to confer immunity, not to establish liability.

Burke v. Deiner

97 N.J. 465 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 1984

, however, our cases make plain that qualified immunity represents the norm. … In part II of this opinion, infra at 475-478, we shall discuss the reach of this qualified immunity.

Norris v. Borough of Leonia

160 N.J. 427 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 26, 1999

immunity for failure to make an inspection or make an inadequate or negligent inspection of its property, and N.J.S.A 59:2-3, establishing immunity for its exercise of judgment or discretion relative to the curb in question … The statutory standard is clearly expressive of a public policy that is inconsistent with the reasons that sustained the creation of the blanket common law municipal immunity for nonfeasance in respect of dangerous conditions

Tonelli v. Board of Education

185 N.J. 438 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 28, 2005

But even if we were to conclude that the Board’s organizational structure does not clearly exclude it from the Act, that would not be the end of the inquiry. … the statute confers either total or limited immunity (“nonprofit corporation,” etc.) have developed an established connotation in our law, i.e., a private charity which depends on charitable contributions and whose funds

United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY CAMDEN

88 N.J. 317 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 18, 1982

The provision clearly is intended to give the State Treasurer flexibility in establishing goals. … Clearly, State Treasurer approval of a local affirmative action plan pursuant to the Law Against Discrimination does not immunize the plan against constitutional and statutory attack.

Matter of Hearing on Immunity for Ethics

96 N.J. 669 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 3, 1984

, statutes, or rules on attorney discipline. 4 We also note five jurisdictions that provide what might be called “qualified” immunity or privilege, 5 and one in which such an immunity has been proposed. 6 Five other states … have judicial precedents establishing either an *677 absolute or a qualified privilege for complaints in the context of libel actions specifically. 7 Under English common law, the “absolute privilege” from defamation actions

Borough of Moonachie v. Port of New York Authority

38 N.J. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 5, 1962

There was no question about its establishment’s being within the agency’s statutory authorization. … On the facts present the borough and the county not only could not, but clearly never intended to bind themselves to treat the manufacturing plant as tax-immune.

Canico v. Hurtado

144 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1996

To further the legislative goal of encouraging pursuits, however, both Tice and Fielder relied on section 2(b)’s grant of absolute immunity, rather than section 3-3’s qualified immunity. … Unlike the absolute immunity of section 2(b), section 3-3 requires that to enjoy qualified immunity public employees must act in “good faith.”

Lindroth v. Christ Hospital

21 N.J. 588 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1956

such immunity when the injured persons are strangers thereto. … The Dean lists 17 jurisdictions in addition to the District of Columbia where the immunity was formerly recognized and has now been repudiated. He concludes, “The immunity of charities is clearly in full retreat.”

Fees v. Trow

105 N.J. 330 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 9, 1987

. *340 III Having established that a qualified privilege is the appropriate measure of protection in this case, we turn next to the question of what constitutes an abuse of that privilege. … Because a qualified privilege is favored with a presumption that there was no express malice, plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that the statements complained of were made “from an indirect or improper motive,

Brown v. St. Venantius School

111 N.J. 325 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 1988

The Act on its face does not immunize defendants from liability in this case, however, because the Act immunizes qualifying charitable organizations from tort liability only to one who is “a beneficiary, to whatever degree … Clearly, the Legislature could have immunized charitable organizations from liability to strangers or nonbeneficiaries had it so chosen. Instead, the Legislature adopted a statute that did just the opposite: N.J.

Cuiyan Qian v. Toll Brothers, Inc. (073982)

223 N.J. 124 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 12, 2015

Last, the limited immunity given to “a qualified common interest community” under N.J.S.A. 2A:62A-13 is a legislative acknowledgement that common-law tort liability extends to the private areas of such a community. … Clearly, the Legislature believed that the private sidewalks of a common-interest community were subject to tort 20 liability; otherwise, it would not have conferred a limited immunity

Shell Oil Co. v. Bd. of Adjustment of Hanover Tp.

38 N.J. 403 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 5, 1962

A consideration of the opinions treating of this subject evokes the conclusion that the test to be applied to a land use in order to ascertain whether it qualifies for an immunity from local zoning regulations is whether … A. 40:8-2), and the other portions of the statute italicized above, clearly demonstrate that the immunity granted is so limited.

Tice v. Cramer

133 N.J. 347 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 28, 1993

The liability of the public entity must be found in the Act, and where found, is subject to any immunity found in the Act and further subject to any immunity previously established by common law. Manna v. … Unlike the New Jersey Act, the California Tort Claims Act qualifies the general immunities afforded a public entity and a public employee by giving the immunities effect “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute.” Cal.

Hawkins v. Harris

141 N.J. 207 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 27, 1995

Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction, as [the] Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine … The investigator would be protected by a qualified privilege. Even a qualified privilege is difficult to overcome in order to establish defamation liability.

Fielder v. Stonack

141 N.J. 101 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 6, 1995

When liability is established under the Act, it is still subject to immunity specified in the Act as well as any common-law immunity which predated the Act. Tice, supra, 133 N.J. at 355 , 627 A.2d 1090 . … VI Having determined the applicability of N.J.S.A. 59:5-2b(2), we now address an alternate basis for immunity: the qualified immunity afforded by N.J.S.A. 59:3-3.

Montclair State Univ. v. Cnty. of Passaic

234 N.J. 434 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 6, 2018

The Attorney General argues that the State must have immunity from local ordinances because "a shift in this well-established balance" would undermine sovereign immunity and allow local entities to stall State projects with … How and where those concerns factor into the Rutgers analysis is a novel issue with respect to our law on the qualified immunity recognized in this area.

Estate of Hiram A. Gonzalez v. The City of Jersey City (084381) (Hudson County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 4, 2021

The TCA “was clearly intended to reestablish a system in which immunity is the rule, and liability the exception.” Ibid. “When both liability and immunity appear to exist, the latter trumps the former.” Tice v. … “Even when one of the [TCA’s] provisions establishes liability, that liability is ordinarily negated if the public entity possesses a corresponding immunity.” Rochinsky v.

State v. Deshler

25 N.J.L. 177 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1855

But it is qualified by the word taxable. … thereby qualified to vote.

Bieker v. Community House of Moorestown

169 N.J. 167 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2001

The trial court granted defendant’s motion, concluding that “[a]n organization ... established to serve [such purposes] ... and to reap no profits” has a “charitable” purpose and consequently is entitled to charitable immunity … Viewing the facts in this context, plaintiffs “presence was clearly incident to accomplishment” of defendant’s charitable purposes, Gray v. St.