Case law

Caporossi v. Atlantic City, New Jersey

220 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 7, 1963

Town of Coca Beach, 96 So.2d 130 , 60 A.L.R.2d 1193 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1957), the court swept aside the basic immunity rule and established the principle of vicarious liability for both active and passive negligence under the doctrine … Clearly this is what the jury has endeavored to do; and it is this, nothing more or less, that this Court believes it has done.

Ali v. Person

904 F. Supp. 375 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 15, 1995

Person has not raised the most clearly dispositive ground for dismissing these claims against him, which is his absolute immunity as a witness in a judicial proceeding from subsequent damages claims arising out of his testimony … Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830 (3d Cir.1976), established that witnesses appearing in federal court are entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability for their testimony at trial.

Rutigliano v. Valley Business Forms

929 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 1996

This testimony clearly demonstrates that Dr. Panitz moved from diagnosis to analysis, rather than from analysis to diagnosis. Dr. … This is called acquired immunity or adaptive immunity-" Dr. Panitz does not explain how this general principle of immunity supports her conclusion.

Park v. Tsiavos

165 F. Supp. 3d 191 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 29, 2016

The Church’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED because it is immune from suit under New Jersey’s Charitable Immunity Act. … The Legislature has instructed that the definition of a “beneficiary” should be “liberally construed so as to afford immunity to a qualifying entity ‘in furtherance of the public policy for the protection of [such entities

MILLER v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Tolan, 572 U.S. at 656 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

BOLLING v. DAVIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citation omitted). … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

KANSHAW v. DESANTIS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 2019

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … In Brosseau, which involved an excessive force claim based upon a police shooting of a suspect fleeing by car, the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity because the officer had violated the clearly established rule that

J. A. v. Riti

377 F. Supp. 1046 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 1974

They both have been previously convicted of a criminal fraud practiced on the Bergen County Welfare Board (the Board) by their deliberately misstating their income sources when qualifying for AFDC benefits. … They contend that § 605 clearly focuses the impact of the AFDC Program upon the child and not upon the párent and that § 602(a) (19) clearly indicates an intent' in the Congress to permit exclusion of parents or relatives

In Re Grand Jury Empanelled January 21, 1981

535 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 1982

The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument that certain state functions are constitutionally immune from the federal subpoena power. … Recognizing that the grand jury is entitled to every person’s evidence absent the valid invocation of an established privilege, the court held that “[njothing in the United States Constitution immunizes any ‘exclusive domain

Yip v. Pagano

606 F. Supp. 1566 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 26, 1985

immunity. … It is well established that New Jersey has adopted the Restatement (Second) position relating to judicial immunities. See *1571 Rainier’s Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 558 , 117 A.2d 889 (1955).

Shapiro v. Baker

646 F. Supp. 1127 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 1986

In this case, defendant has shown clearly that no material issue of fact awaits resolution. The intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine has been narrowed to almost the point of non-existence. … Established case law clearly shows that the tax immunity is not applicable in this case. Therefore, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is granted and judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant will be entered.

SEIDLE v. NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2021

. § 1983 suits by qualified immunity.”). … “Under qualified immunity, government officials are not subject to damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)

212 B.R. 808 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 18, 1997

In defining the term “clearly erroneous” the United States Supreme Court has stated that “[a] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left … Clearly, a finding that these entities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity would result in the dismissal of appellant’s entire first claim and require the Bankruptcy Court to consider those claims which were previously

Canadian Aviator, Ltd. v. United States

52 F. Supp. 211 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 1943

It is well established that the United States may not be sued without its consent, and where, as here, the sovereign immunity is waived by statute, the statute must be strictly construed. … The cause in which the statute is invoked must be clearly within its provisions. Ibid. The facts upon which the present cause of action is founded are recited in the third 1 paragraph of the libel.

In Re Gabapentin Patent Litigation

649 F. Supp. 2d 340 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 27, 2009

Warner-Lambert is entitled to such immunity unless Purepac can establish that the Capsule and Tablet Lawsuits were “sham litigation.” … According to Warner-Lambert, a series of earlier rulings clearly establish that the infringement claims concerning the '476 and '479 Patents were not unreasonable, thereby also establishing the existence of probable cause

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 28, 2022

“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citation omitted). … establish a right for purposes of qualified immunity.”

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

9 F. Supp. 2d 460 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 8, 1998

, stadia or other places of exhibition, gymnasia or other places of exercise or recreation, all of which the NCAA’s regulations clearly treat. *490 See, e.g., NCAA Manual at Figure 14-6 (comparing qualifier, partial qualifier … The NCAA is clearly established by two or more of the entities described in section 794(b)(1) through (3), in particular two or more colleges and universities. See, e.g., NCAA Manual at §§ 3.2.1.1, 3.31.1.

Suri v. Foxx

69 F. Supp. 3d 467 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2014

precludes a Bivens claim against all named defendants except those sued as individuals; d) qualified immunity precludes a Bivens claim against those defendants sued as individuals; e) respondeat superior liability does not … Plaintiff has clearly stated that he applied — either formally or through informal verbal request — for a permanent position with the FAA that would constitute employment, not a contractor position like the one he already

Raniero v. Antun

943 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 1996

Raniero’s attempt to establish a job placement program at Emerson High School failed. Kovacs Cert., ¶ 4. … RaMe-ro’s sole effort to establish a job placement program failed. Kovacs Cert., ¶ 4. Highton testified the failure occurred because RaMero did not follow the “gMdelines” Highton established for the program. Id.

Saponaro v. Grindr, LLC

93 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2015

To establish a cause of action for negligence in New Jersey, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant, (3) actual and … Plaintiff asserts that “the defendants [sic] must clearly have foreseen the potential for use by minors.” (Pl.’s Opp. Br. at 14.)