Case law

DORSEY v. MOHAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 11, 2024

Moham is not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated federal law by United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act … immunity.

Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, NJ v. Kugler

342 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 29, 1972

Thus, the physicians clearly have standing. … The recent restatement of the Botsford principle in the context of a Fourth Amendment ease clearly establishes that the principle is very much alive and is not limited to tort actions. . 262 U.S. 390 , 43 S.Ct. 625 , 67 L.Ed

Assisted Living Associates of Moorestown, L.L.C. v. Moorestown Township

996 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 9, 1998

Relevance and Immunity The Planning Board argues that minutes of the Planning Board- meetings, Plaintiffs’ Exh. 16-17, should not have been considered because of “legislative or quasi-judicial immunity.” … The Planning Board hedges its bets by asserting both legislative and quasi-judicial immunity.

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation

924 F. Supp. 627 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1996

Clearly, Prudential is an “other person” whose disputes with its agents are covered by the current NASD arbitration rules. … To establish qualified privilege under this test, Prudential must show the Court that it made its allegedly defamatory statements on one of three types of “privileged occasion,” defined as (1) situations in which some interest

Cherry Hill Towers, L.L.C. v. Township of Cherry Hill

407 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 6, 2006

The evidence establishes, however, that the Cherry Hill Towers and Langston projects are not similarly situated. … The Third Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, and remanded the matter to the district court for reconsideration under the shocks the conscience

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

746 F. Supp. 2d 642 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 2010

DBEs are more likely than non-DBEs to be pre-qualified for small construction contracts, but are less likely to pre-qualify for larger construction projects. (Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 34.) … Staff from the Procurement Office, which is responsible for reviewing proposals, and engineers would attend in order to clearly explain the project to potential DBEs. (Trial Tr. vol. 2, 89.)

In re Charles R. Partridge Lumber Co.

215 F. 973 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 1914

In whichever way the liability of the principal is established, it must flow from the act of the principal. … And when established it cannot, on the one hand, be qualified by the secret instructions of the principal, nor, on the other hand, be enlarged by the unauthorized representations of the agent.” [3] Cohic was a special agent

United States v. Petrone

19 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 2, 1937

While the former exonerates, the latter gives no immunity. … The question involved in the instant case differs from the principle established in the case of Taylor v.

Gupta v. Perez

101 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 2015

and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … The Third Circuit has established that “a plaintiff ... who seeks to establish a procedural due process claim must demonstrate that ‘(1) he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed within the Fourteenth

Bowers v. . National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, Act, Inc.

151 F. Supp. 2d 526 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 6, 2001

In Bowers VI, I held that the University of Iowa is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. … Finally, the NJLAD does not establish an "inconsistent legislation” problem as described in Instructional Systems, Inc. 12 .

GALLOWAY v. CITY OF WEST ORANGE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2025

However, under New Jersey law, a prosecutor does not enjoy prosecutorial immunity “if it is established that his conduct was outside the scope of his employment or constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, or willful … Ann. § 59:8-9, in turn, provides that a 25 The Township Defendants also assert that they are immune from liability under the qualified immunity doctrine. (Township Br. at 21-27.)

Renna v. County of Union

88 F. Supp. 3d 310 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2014

In short, although Renna is not the addressee of the letter, the alleged infringing use is clearly Renna’s. … Id. at 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753 . 13 That analysis strongly suggests that a mark that does not qualify for registration under Section 2 also does not qualify for protection under Section 43(a).

Jarrah v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, Inc.

487 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 30, 2007

The contractual language is unambiguous, and it is clearly intended to establish a minimum level of service that MO must provide. … An agency relationship can be established through apparent authority.

FREDERICK OF THE FAMILY GONORA v. RISCH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2023

Turning first to Defendant’s immunity from suit: the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity “evolved out of its well-known namesake, judicial immunity,” which protects judges from liability for damages for acts committed within … Finally, the Court briefly notes that Plaintiff's attempt to bring a claim against Defendant based on the bill of attainder clause also clearly fails.

DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY v. WALSH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2025

Since “the claimed injury ‘is the process itself,’ . . . the interests of the parties are clearly adverse.” … Such relief seeks to conform the New Jersey Comptroller’s conduct with federal law—the Compact— and therefore qualifies as prospective relief as required under Ex Parte Young. See Del.

Pittston Co. v. Allianz Insurance

795 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 1992

does not afford immunity, foreign states should be treated no differently than private defendants. … Unless the insured’s claim was clearly without merit, there seems no compelling reason to do otherwise.

Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority v. Regional Administrator

616 F. Supp. 722 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 1985

Further, because it evinces a waiver of sovereign immunity, the grant of such a right of action must be made with specificity and not by implication. Id. … Clearly, the ranking of projects in a priority list addresses the relative, not the inherent, merits of each.

United States v. Bills

639 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 1986

The contract also clearly stated that deferments would not be granted for more than three years. … Bills then wrote to NHSC officials requesting a one year deferment, representing in his letter that his program *829 with Rutgers would qualify him to serve in the NHSC.

United States v. Far East Conference

94 F. Supp. 900 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 18, 1951

The defendants likewise misconceive the effect of the specific immunity granted by the statute. … It is well established that repeals by implication are not favored. United States Alkali Ass’n v. United States, supra, 325 U.S. 209 , 65 S.Ct. 1120 ; United States v.

KHAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 2026

An actionable claim must satisfy six elements to “simultaneously trigger the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, create subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, and establish the Government’s tort … However, Plaintiff cannot amend in his opposition brief the clearly identified federal sources of duty alleged in the Complaint. See Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v.