Case law

State Board of Assessors v. Morris & Essex Railroad

49 N.J.L. 193 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 15, 1886

Their exemption was qualified by their duties and dependent upon them. … Nor is the operation of the act of 1865 controlled or qualified by the fact that the supplements to the charter after the date of that act are repealable.

W v. Pangborne & Co. v. New Jersey Department of Transportation

116 N.J. 543 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 14, 1989

“New Jersey Attorney General’s Task Force on Sovereign Immunity Report” 14-16 (1972) (hereinafter “Atty. Gen. Report”). … Commissioner, Dep't of Transp., 55 N.J. 341, 346 (1970), this Court abolished sovereign immunity, holding that “there should be an established forum in which all such claims may be presented as of right and upon known principles

Bally Manufacturing Corp. v. New Jersey Casino Control Commission

85 N.J. 325 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 17, 1981

Considering the development of that doctrine in the subsequent decisions regarding antitrust immunity for state action, the Court in Midcal stated: These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity under Parker … [N.J.S.A. 52:14B-2(b)] *336 Reviewing the facts of the instant case, we conclude that these standards have been fully satisfied so that the regulation falls within the antitrust immunity established by Parker v.

State v. Friedman

135 N.J.L. 414 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 18, 1947

The denial of protection from the adverse inference is not inconsistent with the claimed immunity; e contra, experience teaches that it serves essential justice. … S. 2 :195-19, unless it clearly appears that it was the product of mistake, passion, prejudice, or partiality. State v. Woodworth, 121 N. J. L. 78. Such is not the case here. Judgment affirmed.

Union City Housing Authority v. Commonwealth Trust Co.

25 N.J. 330 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 25, 1957

S. 2d 837 (1943), it held: “The present statute does not in terms establish a statute of limitations. … No intent that it be retroactive can be clearly drawn from the language of the section. The statute creates a rule of substantive law.

Birchwood Lakes Colony Club, Inc. v. Borough of Medford Lakes

90 N.J. 582 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1982

Permits are issued either by the EPA or a qualifying state that has enacted programs to implement the regulatory provisions of the federal act. … Should the defendant prevail on the establishment of immunity under the TCA, the jury will be instructed to apportion the damages between pre- and post-1972 injury.

In Re Sackman

90 N.J. 521 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 12, 1982

He alleged that the rule violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Art. IV, § 2; the Commerce Clause, Art. … See also Note, “The Future of State Bar Residence Requirements Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause,” 26 S.D.L.Rev. 80, 80 n. 4 (1981).

Raspa v. Office of Sheriff

191 N.J. 323 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 12, 2007

qualified person with a disability the opportunity to obtain or maintain employment ... solely because such person is a person with a disability”). … Because it has *339 been “clearly shown that [plaintiffs] disability would prevent [him] from performing [that] particular job[,]” N.J.S.A. 10:5-29.1, plaintiff, as a matter of law, was not qualified as a “county corrections

Anasia Maison v. NJ Transit Corporation and Kelvin Coats (083484) (Essex County & Statewide)

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.

Home News v. State, Dept. of Health

144 N.J. 446 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 17, 1996

Sections 40.20 to 40.26 of the Registration of Vital Statistics Act establish the same procedures for birth defects. N.J.S.A 26:8-40.20 to -40.26. … Only in the unusual case will a request for cause-of-death information weigh so clearly in favor of disclosure as do the facts presented here.

In re Branch

70 N.J.L. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 23, 1904

That this statute, therefore, is one granting a privilege or immunity, is not to be questioned. … “Whereas it has become essentially necessary to the honor and dignity of this court as well as to the benefit and security of the suitors therein that some farther rule for the admission of att3rs should be established and

P, T & L Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Department of Transportation

55 N.J. 341 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 2, 1970

Div. 1965), the court declared the claimants’ entitlement to a pay differential under a statute notwithstanding that “Whether or not petitioners receive the money to which they are clearly entitled rests exclusively with … Obviously there should be an established forum in which all such claims may be presented as of right and upon known principles. The judiciary of course is able to meet that need.

Shiloh Turnpike Co. v. Bates

80 N.J.L. 171 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 13, 1910

L. 1866, p. 989), and especially the nineteenth section thereof, as constituting an irrepealable contract and thus affording prosecutor immunity from attack under the act of 1882. … It was at that time an established precedent *175 in turnpike charters. State v. Williamstown and Good Intent Co., 4. Zab. 547 (charter dated 1852); State, Mead, prosecutor, v.

Hon. Dana L. Redd v. Vance Bowman(073567)

223 N.J. 87 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 2015

The Court then observed: That sampling clearly establishes that the Legislature has determined, on multiple occasions, those municipal matters that should not be called before the voters … The burden is on the party seeking to defeat the Faulkner Act to clearly establish the existence of a contrary legislative intent.

Hartley v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

134 N.J.L. 217 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 25, 1946

What is the qualified privilege which, although less than full privi-, *221 lege, will still give the defamer immunity unless the defamation be made with actual malice? … Can every person who has any sort of a qualified privilege perpetrate a gross libel, whatever the circumstances and the nature of that libel, and be immune provided only he was not moved thereto by actual malice?

Laidlow v. Hariton MacH. Co., Inc.

170 N.J. 602 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 25, 2002

In fact, not every worker injured on the job receives compensation benefits and not all conduct by an employer is immune from common-law suit. … Furthermore, AMI argues that even if removal of a safety guard could qualify in some circumstances as an intentional wrong, the absence of any prior injury on its machine and Laidlow’s successful experience in operating the

Renz v. Penn Central Corp.

87 N.J. 437 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Sep 28, 1981

Moreover, we note that there has long been an established exception to the general rules governing landowner liability to trespassers, whereby property owners are subject to a higher standard of care when the property owned … interspousal immunity.

O'Regan v. Schermerhorn

25 N.J. Misc. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 6, 1946

Hor can this pleading be sustained as a plea of qualified privilege because the necessary element of lack of malice is not properly alleged. … Cowles, supra, and in the case of a qualified privilege, that publication was without malice.

Carol Ann Conforti v. County of Ocean 086206)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 2023

None grants immunity only to “medical facilities” or public entities or public employees that qualify as medical facilities. … Conforti’s well-being and was clearly unreasonable and therefore negligent.

Kolitch v. Lindedahl

100 N.J. 485 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 22, 1985

IV It is well established that the burden is on the public entity both to plead and prove its immunity under our Act, see Ellison v. … Div.1979) (summary judgment “entirely unwarranted”; defendant’s conduct “clearly not the type of high-level policy decision contemplated by * * * the Tort Claims Act”).