Case law

SOUTH v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

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

Qualified immunity protects officials who violate a plaintiff’s federally protected right, so long as the right was not clearly established by law. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). … Qualified immunity has been defined as a “fair warning” standard by the Supreme Court, meaning that if the federal right is clearly established, the official is sufficiently on notice and may be held monetarily liable.

Cospito v. Califano

89 F.R.D. 374 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 1981

,” no due-process rights are triggered because the patients are free to transfer to a qualified facility. … It is a well-established principle that private action, as distinguished from federal action, is immune from the due-process restrictions of the Fifth Amendment. See Jackson v.

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.

BERNAL v. BOROUGH OF BOGOTA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 9, 2023

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … In other words, if the official’s conduct violated a clearly established right, qualified immunity does not apply. “[C]ourts are free to address the two elements in whichever order they deem appropriate.” Halsey v.

GRUSHACK v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

Qualified Immunity Stanzione, Adams, and Rozov argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff fails to establish that they violated a clearly established … Therefore, “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v.

Hughes v. Lipscher

852 F. Supp. 293 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 16, 1994

Clearly, given the holding of Consumers Union, if the sole basis for plaintiffs’ § 1983 action against defendants were the issuance of the aforementioned provisions, legislative immunity would foreclose recovery of attorneys … Although Gutierrez, as a result of its subsequent history, is clearly devoid of any preclusive effect such that present reliance on it in the legislative immunity context would be injudicious, see Garcia v.

DALAL v. MOLINELLI

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

, rather, is entitled to qualified immunity. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

DORVAL v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless they violated clearly established rights. Williams v. City of York, 967 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2020) (§ 1983); Morillo v. … It was clearly established that Detective Furda could not rely on such statements.

Jama v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

22 F. Supp. 2d 353 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 1998

But ‘the record must clearly establish that after jurisdiction was challenged the plaintiff had an opportunity to present facts by affidavit or by deposition, or in an evidentiary hearing, in support of his jurisdictional … The INS officials claim entitlement to a qualified immunity under the principles established in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982).

Kadetsky v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education

82 F. Supp. 2d 327 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 2000

Billington, 291 N.J.Super. at 393-94 , 677 A.2d 771 (petition sent by plaintiffs co-workers to supervisor and union representative were not excessively published and therefore subject to qualified privilege). 16 A qualified … Clearly, a claim for false light invasion of privacy does not require a finding of retaliation. See id.

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

Bryant v. New Jersey Department of Transportation

1 F. Supp. 2d 426 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 1998

Colorado River Abstention The State Defendants contend that abstention is warranted in this case under the doctrine established in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. … Each of the State Defendants bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to sovereign immunity as "an 'alter ego’ or ‘arm’ of a state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.” See Christy v.

JOHNSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2024

An award of qualified immunity protects a government official from civil liability and suit “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived either from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority in the Courts

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font> TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-2301

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 2023

In opposition, the State Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the actions at issue were reasonable and violated no clearly established law. (State Opp’n at 12.) … a right for purposes of qualified immunity.’”

Montana v. Connor

817 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2011

communications involved the “disclosing of confidential information about pending juvenile cases in the JFCIU” and made “sarcastic and ridiculing comments about the Plaintiff that demonstrate an individual participation in a clearly … (or some other official immunity such as qualified immunity, which Defendant does not assert in his motion).

TOKA

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2026

of qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis first considers whether there was a constitutional violation and, if so, whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. Id. at 232.

LANIADO v. COUNTY OF OCEAN

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

“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 … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

United States v. Enger

472 F. Supp. 490 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 1978

The sanctions apply only when scienter is established. … This anomaly has engendered some confusion since the 1790 statute in some instances clearly provides a much broader grant of diplomatic immunity than is required by the Vienna Convention.

In Re Raphael

238 B.R. 69 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1999

The Perez Court concluded: ... it is clear to this Court that the DMV is a ‘real party-in-interest’ in this case and clearly entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, since a ruling herein concerning restoration of Debt- or … The Third Circuit stated that the James District Court clearly questioned the merits of the state court proceedings. Id. at 52.

CORRADI v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD

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

Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the Fourth Amendment rights asserted by Plaintiff are not clearly established. … Leatherwood had shown a violation of his rights sufficient to satisfy the first qualified immunity prong, he would fail on the ‘clearly established’ prong.” Id. at 1121 (citing Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243–44).