Case law

290 Madison Corp. v. Capone

485 F. Supp. 1348 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 1980

Qualified Immunity Nonjudicial government officials who perform functions of an adjudicatory nature enjoy qualified immunity to § 1983 suits for damages. See Wood v. … In the instant case defendants never formally pleaded qualified immunity.

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.

Warner v. Township of South Harrison

885 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 26, 2012

Plaintiff further argues that qualified immunity is inappropriate because McCall and Spinner’s actions were clearly unreasonable. … clearly established.

Briley v. City of Trenton

164 F.R.D. 26 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 6, 1995

The court in that case concluded that Leatherman should not apply to actions against individual officers in light of their entitlement to a defense of qualified immunity. … While the complaint in this case does not allege a Bivens cause of action, officials sued in § 1983 actions are equally entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. See Harlow v.

NEW JERSEY CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER, INC v. MCALEER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2022

For efficiency, a court may elect to consider the ‘clearly established’ prong first because, if that prong is not satisfied, then qualified immunity applies.” Muth v. Woodring, 666 F. … purposes of qualified immunity.”)

Young v. United States

190 F. Supp. 3d 378 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 2, 2016

Immunity Op., 152 F.Supp.3d at 340-41 , 2015 WL 9592442, at *1 . Three were employees of CUH, and two were employees of CAM-eare, a federally qualified health center (“FQHC”). Id. … immunity.

NEW JERSEY CHINESE COMMUNITY CENTER, INC v. MCALEER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2022

For efficiency, a court may elect to consider the ‘clearly established’ prong first because, if that prong is not satisfied, then qualified immunity applies.” Muth v. Woodring, 666 F. … purposes of qualified immunity.”)

Doe v. Banos

966 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2013

Skahill, 298 Fed.Appx. 161, 165 (3d Cir.2008) (citations omitted) (explaining that (1) qualified immunity protects government officials from liability if their actions do not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … 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).

Owens v. Armstrong

171 F. Supp. 3d 316 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2016

To establish a violation of Title II, Plaintiff must allege: “(1) that he is a qualified individual; (2) with a disability; (3) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities … Under the ADA, Plaintiff must first set forth facts indicating he is a qualified person with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 .

Rudolph v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.

153 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2001

Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity), Wood v. … The question of whether the Defendants are entitled to assert qualified immunity is not presented and need not be addressed by this Court.

Baldwin v. Housing Authority of City of Camden, NJ

278 F. Supp. 2d 365 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2003

Qualified Immunity Finally, the individual defendants assert that they are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. … If a court concludes that an officer’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional right, then it must deny him the protection afforded by qualified immunity. 298 F.3d at 277 (internal quotations and citations

Wright v. New Jersey/Department of Education

115 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2015

New York, 251 F.3d 84, 95 (2d Cir.2001) (ruling that plaintiff had not established state waiver of sovereign immunity for ADEA claims due to lack of showing that Congress had used “unmistakably clear language” to condition … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 817-18 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (in qualified immunity context, stating that “[u]ntil th[e] threshold immunity question is resolved, discovery should not be allowed,” because bare

Thomas v. East Orange Board of Education

998 F. Supp. 2d 338 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 6, 2014

Superintendent Scott and Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields officials from liability for civil damages provided that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To overcome a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Duran v. Merline

923 F. Supp. 2d 702 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 8, 2013

Since the Court has already found a constitutional violation, it need only consider the second prong of the familiar two-step qualified immunity analysis: whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of … “A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity when its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

Coleman v. State of New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services

246 F. Supp. 2d 384 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 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 (quoting Harlow v. … Where a defendant asserts this defense in a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has the initial burden to prove that the defendant’s conduct violated some clearly established right. Id.

Allen v. Wrightson

800 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 1992

Qualified Immunity Government officials performing discretionary functions are protected from civil damages liability by qualified immunity so long as “their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the … Qualified immunity protects all government officials except those who are “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986).

Gretzula v. Camden County Technical Schools Board of Education

965 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 2013

This statement came in the context of assessing whether an interlocutory appeal regarding qualified immunity was timely when the district court had not addressed qualified immunity because it had improperly characterized … Thomas is inapposite because it involved a “pleading as to which a qualified immunity defense cannot reasonably be framed.” Id. at 289.

Klitzman, Klitzman & Gallagher v. Krut

591 F. Supp. 258 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 1984

investigative functions, for which only a qualified immunity is appropriate. … established rights will have been violated.

Andrews v. Camden County

95 F. Supp. 2d 217 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2000

of qualified immunity and should not be made to stand trial. … When material facts are not in dispute, the district court may decide whether a . government official has established the defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law. Anderson v.

United States v. General American Transportation Corp.

367 F. Supp. 1284 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 1973

This Court thus concludes, with the court in Mobil Oil, that the legislative history here is “inconclusive.” 11 This Court holds that the argument in favor of immunity here, strongly established by the language of the statute … The Government next contends that even if corporations are entitled to section 1161(b)(4) immunity, the defendant does not qualify for such immunity here because it has not been shown that the particular individual who reported