Case law

Memory Bowl v. North Pointe Insurance

280 F.R.D. 181 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 13, 2012

“Good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.” Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786 (quoting Publisher Indus. v. … As the party asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, North Pointe bears the burden of proving that the materials at issue qualify for protection from disclosure. Conoco, Inc. v. U.S.

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.”

Nisnick v. United States Postal Service

242 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 10, 2017

However, the “FTCA qualifies its waiver of sovereign immunity for certain categories of claims[;] ... [i]f one of the exceptions applies, the bar of sovereign immunity remains.” … In general, sovereign immunity is construed narrowly and in favor of the Government: “[T]he scope of Congress’s waiver [must] be clearly discernible from the statutory text in light of traditional interpretive tools.

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

United States v. Lowell

490 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 1980

be clearly exculpatory; the testimony must be essential; and there must be no strong governmental interest which countervails against a grant of immunity. … The proffered testimony in the case at bar is not clearly exculpatory.

MESSNER v. WEINGARTEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 17, 2024

, Quasi Immunity, [and] Qualified Immunity.” … Qualified Immunity Lastly, Defendant argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff's affirmative right to file a civilian criminal complaint is not a “clearly established” constitutional

Siss v. County of Passaic

75 F. Supp. 2d 325 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 19, 1999

argument that the individual defendants are shielded from liability by their qualified immunity from suit. … In accordance with the analysis above, however, even if the individual defendants had violated plaintiff's first amendment rights, any such rights were not "clearly established,” and those defendants accordingly are immune

American Centennial Insurance v. Handal

901 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 3, 1995

It is well established in the Third Circuit that the plaintiff must show significantly more than minimum contacts to establish general jurisdiction. Provident Nat’l Bank v. Cal Fed. … Clearly, cases will arise wherein justice shall require that service be permitted, but that ought to be the exception rather than the rule. 9 .

JEFFERSON v. OFFICER GEORGE LIAS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2020

“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 … A public official is entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate a constitutional right or if that right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232.

FONG v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Weber v. United States

991 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 1998

. §§ 2671-2680 , grants a limited, qualified waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. … The fact that the municipality was not maintaining the playground for profit and there was no fee charged for the use of the playground was not enough to establish that the playground was operated for a “philanthropic purpose

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Stults

146 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 7, 1956

Some tests are well established. … The present action fails to meet this well-established test of jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss the action will be granted for the reasons herein stated.

IPPOLITO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2026

“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 … “To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts ‘showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged

United States v. Maas

551 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 1, 1982

Bell, 488 F.Supp. 123 (D.D.C.1980): Smoking marijuana does not qualify as a fundamental right, Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494, 502 (Alaska 1975) (dictum). … However, the court finds that the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the use of marijuana is harmless.

SAINT-JEAN v. HOLLAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2020

violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”). … (It also rejected the officer’s assertion of qualified immunity, finding that he had violated a clearly established right. See Section III.C.1.b, infra.)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ivax Corp.

77 F. Supp. 2d 606 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 4, 2000

That case established that enforcement of a patent procured by fraud upon the Patent and Trademark Office may violate the Sherman Act. 382 U.S. 172 , 86 S.Ct. 347 , 15 L.Ed.2d 247 . … Describing the scope of Parker immunity, the Court wrote: “We reiterate that, with the possible market participant exception, any action that qualifies as state action is ‘ipso facto ... exempt from the operation of the antitrust

Seiderman v. American Institute for Mental Studies

667 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 1987

Based on the record before us, for the reasons set forth above, we find that defendants have carried their burden of establishing that they are covered by N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7, and that plaintiffs have failed to produce any … The New Jersey statute at issue in Prince , N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8, qualifies the broad grant of immunity to charitable nonprofit corporations contained in NJ.S.A. 2A:53A-7 and provides that nonprofit corporations organized exclusively

ALEXANDER

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 4, 2026

an arresting officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. 146 S. … Thus, the arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 931.

MANATA v. UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

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

Thus, qualified immunity will shield a government official from suit unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) a violation of a right that is (2) clearly established at the time of the violation. See id. … However, an allegedly retaliatory investigation is not a “clearly established” First Amendment violation for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity. See Sivella v.

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF NEWARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2019

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity applies where a government actor’s “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Like federal qualified immunity, good faith immunity under the NJTCA protects a public employee from suit when the actor “reasonably believed that his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established laws.”