Case law

George v. Board of Education

34 F. Supp. 3d 442 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2014

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Second, was that right “clearly established”? Id. Qualified immunity applies to O.G.’s federal and state constitutional claims. See Sussino v.

Reynolds v. Borough of Avalon

799 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 1992

N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 confers qualified or “good faith” immunity on public officials for their discretionary acts. … Thus, the question becomes whether each defendant would have reasonably believed that her/his actions were lawful in light of reasonably believed that her/his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.

Simmermon v. Gabbianelli

865 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2012

Defendants concede that the due process rights in question are clearly established, and rest their argument for qualified immunity on the assertion that while the rights are clear, it was not clear to Defendants that their … Since Defendants concede this to be clearly established, there is no basis for qualified immunity.

Davis v. Township of Paulsboro

421 F. Supp. 2d 835 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 2006

Many cases have stated that an individual government official is entitled to qualified immunity if the right alleged to have been violated was "not clearly established.” See, e.g., McKee v. … Thus, the language "clearly established right," when applied in this type of case, risks the undesirable and incongruous result that qualified immunity will be denied to most, if not all, law enforcement officers because

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

595 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2009

Qualified Immunity for Warden Juel Cole in his individual capacity; 4. … Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly

Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services

148 F. Supp. 2d 462 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2001

“The doctrine of qualified immunity ‘hold[s] that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … However, far from being clearly established, the plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim is somewhat novel.

Getch v. Rosenbach

700 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1988

In so doing, Getch misconstrues the meaning of “clearly established rights.” … Conversely, an official’s subjective good faith no longer gives rise to a defense of qualified immunity if the court finds his conduct to be objectively unreasonable in that it violated clearly established law. Davis v.

Doe v. Borough of Barrington

729 F. Supp. 376 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 29, 1990

Defendant Smith did not assert a qualified immunity defense. … Perhaps this contention is defendant’s inartful attempt to assert qualified immunity. The defendant, however, has the burden to prove the defense of qualified immunity. Gomez v.

Williams v. Hayman

657 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2008

While Defendants argue that the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, they have not raised the defense that Title II constitutes an invalid attempt to abrogate state sovereign immunity to the extent that … The Individual Defendants also argue that even if such claims were cognizable under Title II of the ADA, they would be entitled to qualified immunity.

Liberty and Prosperity 1776, Inc. v. Corzine

720 F. Supp. 2d 622 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2010

Having found such an allegation of a deprivation, the Court must address “whether the right that was [allegedly] violated was clearly established, or, in other words, whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that … Apart from the question of the scope of qualified immunity in any given case, a separate question is whether a given official is entitled to qualified immunity at all.

Thomas v. ATTY. GEN. OF NEW JERSEY

692 F. Supp. 2d 444 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2010

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions ... are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the objectionable conduct.

Peltack v. Borough of Manville

547 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 23, 1982

I do not reach this novel question because I have determined that under the undisputed facts of this case, the defendants are entitled to a qualified good faith immunity. Harlow v. … Therefore the test on summary judgment which the court should apply is: On summary judgment, the judge appro- ■ priately may determine, not only the currently applicable law, but whether that law was clearly established at

RUSSELL v. CITY OF BAYONNE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Clearly Established Right In their motion for summary judgment, Defendants focus on whether the use of force violated a clearly established right. Defs. Br. at 12-16.

Cinaglia v. Levin

258 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2003

An individual is immune if his or her conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id. at 399 . … Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for suits brought under § 1983. IV.

CN Ex Rel. JN v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ.

319 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 2004

were violating any of Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity shields state officials performing discretionary functions from suit for damages in their individual capacity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Hill v. Algor

85 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 18, 2000

Finally, there is no meaningful dispute regarding Kwap’s entitlement to qualified immunity. The right to be free from an unprovoked beating while in police custody is clearly established. See e.g., Thompson v. … Both Makuka and Kwap also assert qualified immunity defenses. A person’s right "not to suffer deliberate indifference to serious medical needs" while in police custody, however, is clearly established. Estelle v.

NABELSI v. HOLMDEL TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2021

Pa. 1982) (“The law is clearly established that law enforcement officers who effect an arrest pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant are immune from suit alleging a constitutional.”), and I DISMISS Count I … As such, even if Southwest did not hire Nabelsi because of the arrest record, it is far from certain whether that would qualify as “the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of liberty.”

Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.

137 F. Supp. 2d 575 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2001

If it applies, it protects absolutely, making the speaker “wholly immune” from liability. Id.; see also Peterson v. … (stating that the privilege makes statements “absolutely immune from liability”); Ruberton v.

Chiropractic Alliance of New Jersey v. Parisi

854 F. Supp. 299 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 27, 1994

Thus, while the Defendants are potentially entitled to qualified immunity, 17 they are not entitled to absolute immunity. IV. Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied. … Defendants raise a similar specificity argument in the context of their qualified immunity claim, discussed infra. Where qualified immunity is at issue, there is a heightened pleading standard. See Hunter v.

Paton v. LaPrade

471 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 1979

Qualified Immunity. Defendants argue that they are immune from civil liability under the principle of qualified immunity. … . § 1983 unless the constitutional right he was alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. More recently in Butz v.