Case law

Kaul v. Christie

372 F. Supp. 3d 206 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 25, 2019

Qualified Immunity The Governor, Chiesa, Dr. Lomazow and Roeder argue that they enjoy qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts "showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was 'clearly established' at the time of the challenged conduct

Simmerman v. Corino

804 F. Supp. 644 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 23, 1992

Absolute Immunity Plaintiffs’ counsel appears oblivious to the well-established doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity. In Imbler v. … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Velius v. Township of Hamilton

754 F. Supp. 2d 689 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 2010

immunity. … Evanson, 615 F.3d 197, 224 (3d Cir.2010) (qualified immunity analysis asks “ ‘whether the right was clearly established ... in light of the specific context of the case.... ’ A right is clearly established if ‘it would be

Stanziale v. County of Monmouth

884 F. Supp. 140 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1995

The court must, however, address Jargowsky’s claim of qualified immunity as it relates to the individual-capacity claims. The modern doctrine of qualified immunity was established in Harlow v. … For immunity to attach, the right allegedly violated must have been clearly established at the time the challenged activity took place. Anderson v.

Ramirez v. United States

998 F. Supp. 425 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 1998

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity applies when “conduct does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known”). … -allegations state- a claim for violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before commencement of discovery.” Mitchell v.

Thomas v. Ferguson

361 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2004

Malicious and sadistic use of force is always in violation of clearly established law, so qualified immunity affords no protections to defendants in Eighth Amendment excessive force cases. Skrtich v. … to cause harm is clearly established to be a violation of the Constitution”); Johnson v.

Malignaggi v. County of Gloucester

855 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 1994

The court must then determine whether the officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable given the legal rules clearly established at the time. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639 , 107 S.Ct. at 3038 . … Only when the contours of a right are sufficiently clear so that a reasonable officer would understand that his conduct violates that right will a right be considered clearly established.

Hickson v. Marina Associates

743 F. Supp. 2d 362 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 27, 2010

“Where a defendant asserts a qualified immunity defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. 9 *370 At the outset, the Court looks to determine whether the State defendants’ actions violated a clearly

Boyce v. Eggers

513 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2007

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Defendants’ motion for summary judgment includes a claim that the individual officers (Beppel and Conte) are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because Plaintiffs cannot establish that Defendants committed any constitutional violation when Eggers filed her criminal complaint, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for that aspect of the case. C.

Bradley v. United States

164 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 10, 2001

Unless a plaintiff alleges a violation of a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known,” a federal employee is immune from suit. Harlow v. … It cannot be found here that there was a clearly established rule that prohibited Defendants conduct on that night. The Defendants would therefore be entitled to qualified immunity.

McCullough v. City of Atlantic City

137 F. Supp. 2d 557 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2001

Qualified Immunity Under § 1983 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs § 1983 claim against the individual Defendants are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. 5 Qualified immunity shields government officials performing … Gable, 823 F.2d 723 (3d Cir.1987), the Third Circuit, in considering the issue of qualified immunity, stated that “as of 1982 the law was clearly established that a public employee could not be demoted in retaliation for

Sonntag v. Papparozzi

256 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2003

Doctrine of Qualified Immunity The Third Circuit has ruled that parole board members are entitled to absolute *325 immunity in their adjudicative functions, and qualified immunity for their activities in administrative functions … Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001), the Court must determine, in a qualified immunity analysis, whether the Defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Dupont v. United States

197 F. Supp. 3d 678 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 23, 2016

The Court must now decide whether CAMcare, and by extension the United States, qualifies as a charity and is immune from suit. … CAMcare was a defendant in a similar FTCA action in Young, and the court addressed whether CAMcare qualified for absolute charitable immunity or whether it was a hospital N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 and qualified for a cap on damages

Young ex rel. J.Y. v. United States

152 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 2, 2015

qualifies for a cap on damages under the NJCIA. … Applying these standards, the Court concludes that the Government does not qualify for absolute immunity under the NJCIA, but may qualify for the damages cap.

Russo v. Voorhees Township

403 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 2005

Governmental officials are generally granted qualified immunity so that they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. Saucier v.

CALI v. BOROUGH OF SEASIDE PARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2020

Consequently, “[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” /d. … Instead, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges a claim of a violation of a clearly established right. Qualified immunity, therefore, is not established on the face of the Amended Complaint.

Pomykacz v. Borough of West Wildwood

438 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 20, 2006

Officer Ferentz and Mayor Fox are entitled to qualified immunity from the § 1983 claims “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … A reasonable official would know that these actions violated Pomykacz’s clearly established constitutional rights. See Cuvo v.

HARTFELDER v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 15, 2019

They argue that (1) their use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; and (2) even if it were not, they are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate a clearly established … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Rk Ex Rel. Skb v. Yale Schools, Inc.

621 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2008

Qualified Immunity The Court first reviews the standard under which Defendants’ qualified immunity defense is analyzed. … In the second step of the analysis, the Court addresses “whether the right that was violated was clearly established, or, in other words, ‘whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in

SALKIN v. LABROSSE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 2019

Qualified immunity protects government officials from damages for conduct that does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Sauers v. … can defeat a qualified immunity defense.”).