Case law

Denise Brown v. State of New Jersey (076656) (Cumberland County and Statewide)

230 N.J. 84 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 2017

In this matter, defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity in connection with their motion for summary judgment, arguing that McArthur applied and provided “the only clearly established, constitutional standard” … established at the time of his conduct, we conclude that Detective Steet is entitled to qualified immunity.

Schneider v. Simonini

163 N.J. 336 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 6, 2000

L.Rev. 1045, 1045 n. 1 (1990) (Brands, Qualified Immunity). One of the elements of qualified immunity, originally established in Wood v. … The standard for qualified immunity established in Harlow is whether an executive official, such as a police officer, violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

Wildoner v. Borough of Ramsey

162 N.J. 375 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 31, 2000

The Court, concluding that an officer applying for a warrant is entitled to assert qualified but not absolute immunity, observed that the defense of qualified immunity provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent … Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability” that is effectively lost if the case is allowed to go to trial. Mitchell v.

Eric Morillo v. Monmouth County Sheriff's

222 N.J. 104 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 13, 2015

Qualified immunity shields officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages where their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Ed. 2d at 866- 67 (reiterating that qualified immunity protects public officials from suit for violations of clearly established statutory or constitutional rights unless action was plainly incompetent or knowing violation

Kirk v. City of Newark

109 N.J. 173 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

Thus, the qualified-immunity defense would be lost if the official knew or reasonably should have known that his or her action would violate plaintiffs clearly established constitutional rights or if he or she maliciously … For Kirk to defeat Cardillo’s assertion of the defense of qualified immunity, Kirk must show that the law was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)

218 N.J. 72 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 2014

It held, however, that those rights were not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore dismissed the claims against the officials on the ground of qualified immunity. 1 Gormley v. … The Appellate Division, nevertheless, concluded that that right was not clearly established at the time of the assault on Gormley and therefore granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed the federal civil-rights

Bryheim Jamar Baskin v. Rafael Martinez (081982) (Camden County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 9, 2020

If the right at issue is not clearly established, then the officer alleged to have violated that right will be entitled to qualified immunity. … Many Section 1983 cases rise or fall on the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Winberry Realty Partnership v. Borough of Rutherford (083156) (Bergen County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 28, 2021

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, finding that the Tax Collector was entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that she did not violate the clearly established constitutional or statutory … “The doctrine of qualified immunity generally protects government officials from 24 civil liability for discretionary acts that do ‘not violate clearly established statutory or

Lee v. Brown

232 N.J. 114 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 21, 2018

The panel held that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … The TCA effectuates the Legislature's intent to establish immunity for government action as the rule and liability as the exception.

Frances Green v. Monmouth University (080612) (Monmouth County and Statewide)

237 N.J. 516 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 7, 2019

of immunity is decided once it is established that the entity itself is “charitable,” “religious,” or “educational.” … The panel found that the concerts were nevertheless “clearly ‘educational’ and ‘charitable’ within the intent of the Charitable Immunity Act.” Ibid.

Hamid Harris v. City of Newark (085028) (Essex County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified immunity operates to shield government officials performing discretionary functions generally from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established.’”

KEMP EX REL. WRIGHT v. State, County of Burlington

147 N.J. 294 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 14, 1997

N.J.S.A. 26:11-12, however, establishes a generalized grant of qualified immunity to county boards and their agents “for any act ” performed “in good faith and with ordinary discretion.” … We conclude that N.J.S.A. 26:ll-12’s grant of only qualified immunity for discretionary acts is clearly inconsistent with the TCA’s general discretionary immunity provisions which provide for absolute immunity in that context

Brian Royster v. New Jersey State Police(075926)

227 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 17, 2017

Defendant also stresses that sovereign immunity is a well-established defense to ADA claims in federal courts, and that plaintiff could have pursued both the LAD and ADA claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations … Burdette Tomlin Mem’l Hosp., 438 F.3d 240, 246, n.12 (3d Cir. 2006)). 5 *500 To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) “qualifies as an individual with a disability

Bombace v. City of Newark

125 N.J. 361 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 7, 1991

other antecedent or surrounding conduct might constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity. … In construing the Act, this Court has respected that legislative policy to establish immunity as the general rule. E.g., Rochinsky v. State, 110 N.J. 399, 407-08 , 541 A. 2d 1029 (1988).

Leang v. Jersey City Board of Education

198 N.J. 557 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 16, 2009

The panel concluded that their actions fell outside the protections of qualified immunity because they violated plaintiffs clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty and due process. See Saucier v. … We begin with a brief overview of the TCA and the qualified immunity it confers.

Gilchinsky v. NATIONAL WESTMINISTER BANK

159 N.J. 463 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 14, 1999

N.J.S.A. 25:2-1 provides a “qualified immunity” for funds deposited in a New Jersey IRA. The purpose behind such expansive protection is to prevent creditors from attaching money earmarked for retirement. … In exempting fraudulent conveyances from the otherwise broad-based immunity, the Legislature clearly intended to prevent debtors from using New. Jersey law to shield their assets from creditors.

O'CONNELL v. State

171 N.J. 484 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 6, 2002

Further, because the plaintiff was a student of the college, the plaintiff clearly was a beneficiary of the college. Id. at 484 , 713 A.2d 503 . … Any liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity and is subject to any defenses that would be available to the public entity if it were a private person.

Brown v. Brown

86 N.J. 565 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1981

Applicability of subsection d, namely, the State’s exercise of discretion with respect to when it would proceed, does not per se establish immunity, for immunity is not available if “a court concludes that the determination … A front loader and qualified maintenance personnel located at a nearby maintenance yard were accessible.

Crawn v. Campo

136 N.J. 494 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 21, 1994

and, consequently, do not warrant an immunity. … A witness, although otherwise qualified as an expert by virtue of specialized education, training, or experience to testify on the rules that generally govern a sport, would not thereby be qualified as an expert on a specific

Jari Almonte v. Township of Union

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 25, 2026

Sharma once they established contact” and that defendants accordingly qualified for immunity. … Sharma clearly establish that they were “taking orders from a licensed physician” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 26:2K-10.