Case law

Ingenito v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF NJ

568 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 19, 1983

In their brief, they only discuss the affirmative defense of "qualified" immunity. Defendants' Brief at 20-22. … The court assumes the individual defendants are not relying upon any other kind of immunity defense. [6] Before reaching the question of the individual's qualified immunity, the court must address the issue of the State of

Juan v. Rafferty

577 F. Supp. 774 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 5, 1984

I believe that he is entitled only to qualified immunity for the same reasons that the disciplinary charge hearing officer is entitled only to qualified immunity. See infra. … ____” Butz____ I conclude that defendant Fannon is entitled only to a qualified immunity.

Ernst v. Borough of Fort Lee

739 F. Supp. 220 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 1990

Even were I to conclude that the officers in question enjoyed qualified immunity (a proposition which appears doubtful — see below), the municipality would not be exempt on this ground. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 655 , 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1417 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), municipalities are not entitled to qualified immunity based upon the good faith actions of their officers.

Fulgham v. Daniel J. Keating Co.

285 F. Supp. 2d 525 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2003

Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that if Keating qualifies as a statutory employer, it is immune from any other type of liability. … Plaintiff, however, contends that Keating fails to establish the second and third prongs of the test and therefore is not entitled to immunity.

Saudi Basic Industries Corp. v. ExxonMobil Corp.

194 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 3, 2002

The motion must be denied “ ‘unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Ilan-Gat Eng’rs, Ltd. v. Shelter Sys. … The foreign state defendant filed a conditional claim clearly asserting that the claim was to be considered only if its sovereign immunity defense was rejected.

Figueroa v. City of Camden

580 F. Supp. 2d 390 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 2, 2008

Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 , 93 S.Ct. 1614 , 36 L.Ed.2d 251 (1973) (“[I]t is established that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another … To establish a prima facie case under CEPA, Plaintiff must establish (1) his reasonable belief that his employer’s conduct violated a law, rule, or regulation; (2) a whistle-blowing activity; (3) an adverse employment action

O'BRIEN v. Borough of Woodbury Heights

679 F. Supp. 429 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 11, 1988

The individual defendants, as government officials, are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their discretionary acts, “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Weber, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3263 , 97 L.Ed.2d 762 (1987) (clearly established in 1983); Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1981), cert. denied sub nom Duffy v.

Robinson v. Jordan

804 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 30, 2011

Defendant's request for qualified immunity from plaintiff's federal claims must be denied. " ‘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 would have known.’ " Montanez v.

Islam v. City of Bridgeton

804 F. Supp. 2d 190 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2011

Defendant Shrader is also not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of immunity. Qualified immunity protects officer who “made a reasonable mistake about the legal constraints” on their actions. Curley v. … A mistake is not reasonable when it amounts to the violation of a “clearly established” right, such that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

White v. Fauver

19 F. Supp. 2d 305 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1998

of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] was taken.” … law and, therefore, were entitled to qualified immunity.

Nannay v. Rowan College

101 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2000

“[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As this Court has held, their conduct, even when taken as alleged by the plaintiff, cannot be found to have violated clearly established law.

Taylor v. Plousis

101 F. Supp. 2d 255 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 20, 2000

Defendant Shagren further argues that he is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … A parallel argument involves claims of qualified immunity which often protect government officials charged with a constitutional violation.

Hottenstein v. City of Sea Isle City

977 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 11, 2013

Moreover, even if the Plaintiffs could demonstrate that the municipal Defendants’ actions shocked the conscience, these Defendants would still be entitled to the defense of Qualified Immunity, established under Saucier v. … Expanding upon the two-part test for Qualified Immunity, the Saucier Court explained that ”[t]he concern of the immunity inquiry is to acknowledge that reasonable mistakes can be made as to the legal constraints on particular

Sullivan v. New Jersey, Division of Gaming Enforcement

602 F. Supp. 1216 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 14, 1985

In view of this, the qualified immunity discussed in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), would insulate the state officers from liability under § 1983. … them to these immunities.

Dunkley v. Board of Education

216 F. Supp. 3d 485 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 20, 2016

If the answer to that question is ‘yes,’ we must then consider whether the right was clearly established. … If we also answer 'yes' to the second question, we must conclude that the official does not have qualified immunity.”). .

TELLES v. NOGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 19, 2024

constitutional violation, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. D.

New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. Housing Authority & Urban Redevelopment Agency

68 F. Supp. 3d 545 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2014

The Seaway court found the “ ‘fringe benefit’ ” provision insufficient to establish SPAD’s obligation to contribute to a pension plan because the provision “clearly” stated that the obligation to provide such benefits ran … The Court therefore only briefly notes that, the question of whether an entity qualifies as an employer under the MPPAA clearly constitutes a legal question for a district court, not an arbitrator, particularly because the

Egloff v. New Jersey Air National Guard

684 F. Supp. 1275 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 27, 1988

California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) the Supreme Court clearly established that the Fifth Amendment does not apply to physical extractions from the body. … United States, 663 F.2d 1226 (3d Cir.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 972 , 102 S.Ct. 2234 , 72 L.Ed.2d 845 (1982), which held that the established doctrine of military immunity precluded state causes of action against

Ewing v. Cumberland County

152 F. Supp. 3d 269 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2015

Mingúela is not- entitled to qualified immunity Defendant Mingúela alone argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … 'The qualified immunity claim is traditionally analyzed in two steps.

Rapp v. Awany

205 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2002

In accordance with this well recognized right, Plaintiff, as a judgment creditor of Singh and G.S.Freight, clearly has standing to sue Defendants in the present case. … Rather, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23, the requirements of which are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9, states that “the application for the policy [be] accompanied by a written notice identifying and