Case law

Martin v. Unknown U.S. Marshals

965 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2013

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 … Qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes. See Anderson v.

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen v. Florio

744 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 1990

Plaintiffs assert that the immunity provided by the voluntary surrender statute is inadequate because it would not immunize them from prosecution for manufacture, sale, disposal, shipment, or transport of large capacity magazines … Indeed, in § 927, the Congress clearly expressed its intent not to occupy the field of intrastate gun control regulation: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress

LEE v. CLARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two- prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time … In Gibson, the Court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity because an officer’s affirmative duty to disclose information was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs conviction

KELLEY v. REYES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two- prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time … In Gibson, the Court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity because an officer’s affirmative duty to disclose information was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs conviction

DELSOLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2026

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the … decline to resolve qualified immunity defenses at the pleadings stage.

RUIZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2020

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” … In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, this Court is required to grant qualified immunity to Defendants Hepner and Soltys on Plaintiff’s conspiracy

King v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

909 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 1995

Plaintiff asserts that he was clearly better qualified for the position since he holds a New York State license and has attained a Master’s Degree. … The courts have recognized the difficulty of establishing such a claim in an employment related dispute.

Takeda Pharmaceutical v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals

358 F. Supp. 3d 389 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 19, 2018

It is well-established that a proper complaint "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." … The Court denies Takeda's request to file a supplemental brief, on the basis that it is clearly untimely; and, it incorporates arguments which could have been raised earlier.

Telephone Workers Union, Local 827 v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.

450 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 8, 1977

Upgrade qualified employees from lower graded titles giving due consideration to ability, aptitude, attendance, physical fitness, proximity to assignment and seniority. 2. … The complaint also challenged the seniority system established by the collective bargaining agreements between employer and union.

United States v. Smith

580 F. Supp. 1418 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1984

Demonstrating that the evidence to be used at trial was “untainted” would not alone necessarily establish that the government did not use the immunized testimony in some of the more subtle and remote ways discussed above. … Accordingly, in addition to showing that the federal government’s evidence is derived from sources totally independent of the defendant’s immunized testimony, the government must demonstrate the steps it took to establish

C.H. Ex Rel. Z.H. v. Oliva

990 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1997

Under the present circumstances, both the Medford and the State defendants clearly acted under the col- or of state law. 2. … The immunity from suit also extends to "agencies or departments” of the state.

Popow v. City of Margate

476 F. Supp. 1237 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 1979

A state legislature could always refuse to waive its sovereign immunity, revoke a previous waiver, or grant a limited right of action subject to statutory immunities. … For example, under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq., there is immunity for public employees’ discretionary acts. N.J.S.A. 59:3-2.

United States v. Failla

120 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 1954

This remedy is clearly preserved by the provisions of Section 3806 of the Code, supra. … It is well established that sovereign immunity extends not only to original claims but also to counterclaims which demand the entry of an affirmative judgment against the sovereign.

ZISA v. HAVILAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, this Court concluded that Haviland did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the allegations that relate to his instructions to

FERRER v. VON PIER

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

First, to overcome qualified immunity defense, the “clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based.” Doe v. … No. 49 of the “clearly established right” is too broad for purposes of qualified immunity analysis. See Mammaro v.

800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo. Com, Inc.

437 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 13, 2006

JR Cigar counters that the Communications Decency Act immunity may not cover GoTo since it may not qualify as an “interactive computer service.” PI. Rply. Mem. in Opp. at 27. … The Court is not persuaded that GoTo qualifies for immunity under the Act.

SABBAGH

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

Qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit” and absolves government officials of the obligation to stand trial so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, unless the face of the complaint establishes whether a right was “clearly established or not,” a “district court must deny the motion to dismiss and seek to resolve qualified immunity at summary judgment.”

Mobley v. City of Atlantic City Police Department

89 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 1999

immunity because the courts “had not yet ‘clearly established’ the proper response required under the constitution” to a sexual harassment claim. … Mobley has not identified any “clearly established” constitutional right that Loen is alleged to have violated.

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.

PINKSTON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2020

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … As such, the Defendant Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated a clearly established constitutional right.