Case law

Terry Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Family Health Center (073483)

221 N.J. 239 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 31, 2015

The immunity bestowed by the CIA extends to the buildings and other facilities actually used for the purposes of the qualifying organization, such as a hospital. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-9. … The immunity bestowed by the CIA extends to the buildings and other facilities actually used for the purposes of the qualifying organization, such as a hospital. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-9.

Manna v. State

129 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1992

IV Both the trial court and the Appellate Division held that the State was immune from liability under the Act’s provision establishing immunity for injuries caused solely by inclement weather. … However, we did not require that the State demonstrate its conscious rejection of smoke detectors in order to qualify for the immunity. Ibid.

Hardwicke v. American Boychoir School

188 N.J. 69 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 8, 2006

If, under the CSAA, an entity — DYFS—can qualify as a *88 “guardian,” it follows that the School can qualify as a “person.” … By the plain meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a), “an entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it ‘(1) was formed for nonprofit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and

William v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks

144 N.J. 269 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 4, 1996

Qualified immunity allows AABB to make proper decisions, relieved of some liability, but imposes a sufficient check against decisions that are clearly wrong and motivated by profit. … If AABB can establish that, when “faced with alternative approaches, [it] weighed the competing policy considerations and made a conscious choice,” ibid., then it should be entitled to qualified immunity, and Mr.

Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church

175 N.J. 333 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 11, 2003

Charitable immunity was the pivotal issue. The facts established by the pleadings, discovery, and other documents on file basically are uncontroverted. Mrs. … Moreover, our case law indicates that the form that the education takes is not a touchstone for qualifying for immunity.

State v. Atti

127 N.J.L. 39 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1941

The immunity granted is, in our view, thus strictly limited and the court may not extend it. … The court held that knowledge on the part of McBarron, an election officer in charge of registration, as to the status of Eoanes must be clearly proved or shown by such circumstances as to leave no reasonable doubt in a fair

Fine v. Rutgers

163 N.J. 464 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 13, 2000

The court concluded that “case law clearly supports the position that Rutgers is not considered part of the State for purposes of contractual and discrimination matters.” … In this matter, the cause of action clearly arose in Essex County where Fine was employed at the Rutgers-Newark campus for his entire career.

Rutgers v. Piluso

60 N.J. 142 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1972

A. 18A:65-1 to -35, L. 1956, c. 61, the entity thereby created is not such an instrumentality of the state as to qualify it for immunity from local land use regulation on that basis. … The contention appears to be that only a contract relationship was thereby established between the state and the Board of Trustees of the prior institution and that the Legislature did not intend to confer immunity.

Stothers v. Martini

6 N.J. 560 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 2, 1951

S. 40 :72-l ei seq.) and the plaintiffs are all citizens, residents and qualified voters of the. city. … -vote and the right to hold 'office are coextensive and that the electors may vote for persons not qualified to hold office.

State v. Spindel

24 N.J. 395 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 27, 1957

It cannot be that the witness may confess a criminal offense while on the witness stand in the legislative inquiry and thereby secure immunity from prosecution, even though the offense may be established by evidence other … But the associated words “or admitted in evidence” qualify and clarify the more indefinite term “used,” and make certain the legislative end in view.

Berger v. State

71 N.J. 206 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 21, 1976

governmental unit to be immune with respect to the particular enterprise. … Prom these enactments, it is clear that the Legislature intended to immunize the Department of Institutions and Agencies from the operation of local zoning provisions which prohibit the establishment of a group home.

Connor v. Powell

162 N.J. 397 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 2000

If officers of reasonable competence could disagree on the issue of probable cause, the doctrine of qualified immunity should be applied. Malley v. … In order to enjoy qualified immunity, the official must demonstrate that “his conduct was justified by an objectively reasonable belief that it was lawful.” Gomez v.

Family Finance Corp. v. Gaffney

11 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1953

The Legislature has seen fit to establish the policy that the general welfare is best subserved by restricting the.number of small loan establishments in a given community. … The findings clearly refute any suggestion that his action was designed to advantage the present licensees.

Daniel Tumpson v. James Farina (072813)

218 N.J. 450 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 31, 2014

Stripped to its essence, the dissent is suggesting that injunctive relief is barred by qualified immunity. … See Harlow, supra, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d at 410 (“[Government officials ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Velazquez Ex Rel. Velazquez v. Jiminez

172 N.J. 240 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 29, 2002

To qualify for immunity under Pennsylvania’s statute, the Good Samaritan must hold “a reasonable opinion that the immediacy of the situation is such that the rendering of care should not he postponed until the patient is … Although the *261 absence of a pre-existing duty is one element that volunteers must establish to qualify for Good Samaritan immunity, Praet v. Borough of Sayreville, 218 N.J.Super. 218, 223 , 527 A.2d 486 (App.

Anasia Maison v. NJ Transit Corporation and Kelvin Coats

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 17, 2021

Defendants qualify for this immunity only if they engaged in some act or acts to enforce a law. … Defendants qualify for this immunity only if they engaged in some act or acts to enforce a law. See Bombace, 125 N.J. at 368.

Fischer v. Fischer

13 N.J. 162 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 1953

S. 43:16-1 et seq., as amended, is wholly immune from judicial appropriation, before the individual installments reach the hands of the pensioner, to the satisfaction of alimony established by judgment. … And even though voidable merely, it cannot stand as to payments in fuluro when its invalidity is established. All this is axiomatic truth.

Nl Industries, Inc. v. State(076550)

228 N.J. 280 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 27, 2017

In other words, a legislative waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressed clearly and unambiguously, Allen v. … We now proceed to determine whether the Legislature clearly and unambiguously intended to abrogate, retroactively, the State’s sovereign immunity for activities that occurred prior to enactment of the Spill Act.

Schwartz v. Borough of Stockton

32 N.J. 141 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 5, 1960

The title designates the measure as “An Act establishing the non-liability of counties, municipalities and school districts by reason of *149 injury to the person from the use of any public grounds or buildings.” … Assuming solely for discussion purposes that this is a correct characterization, we do not think it divested immunity otherwise applicable. The statute does not qualify the word “use” by the adjective “public.”

Luis Perez v. Zagami, LLC (071358)

218 N.J. 202 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 21, 2014

Thus, a plain language reading of subsection (c) does not clearly indicate to which claims the phrase “person acting under color of law” should apply. … well-established federal constitutional or statutory right”).