Case law

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

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.”

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.

ARIAS v. CITY OF TRENTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

For efficiency, a court may elect to consider the ‘clearly established’ prong first because, if that prong is not satisfied, then qualified immunity applies.” Muth v. Woodring, 666 F. … of qualified immunity.”)

PRICE

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 28, 2026

Thus, to the extent the County sought qualified immunity, it must be denied. Defendant Cuzzupe, however, as an individual, may be entitled to qualified immunity in this matter. … “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

SANCHEZ v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

Troiano is entitled to qualified immunity under the second prong of the analysis because he did not violate any clearly established right. … immunity under the second prong of the analysis because they did not violate any clearly established right.

HARLEY v. CITY OF WOODBURY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that “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 … at issue was “clearly established” at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct.

YAH 'TORAH v. EMRICH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2023

They sought dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity because there is no precedent that clearly established that they violated a federal statutory or constitutional … Even if the prison official did, in fact, misapply the NJSP’s weight requirements, they would still be afforded qualified immunity.

Security Savings Bank v. Director, Office of Thrift Supervision

798 F. Supp. 1067 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 28, 1992

express waiver of sovereign immunity. … Unfortunately for plaintiff, Bowen’s holding is clearly not on point here because it involved a statutory claim rather than a contract claim.

CORDERO v. MARTIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2025

DISCUSSION Defendant argues that: (1) she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that “two isolated incidents” in which Defendant allegedly opened Plaintiffs legal mail … Harlow, 457 U.S, at 818-19, For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived cither from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of

SEXTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2023

“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 … the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.”

Arista Records, Inc. v. Flea World, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2005

Columbus Farmers Market argues that this defense was improperly struck, because it seeks not to establish the “negligence of third parties” nor a claim for contribution, but rather to establish that any damage to Plaintiffs … Thus, case law is clear that, in order to overcome this qualified privilege, Defendants must plead malice.

MOSLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

was not clearly established. … Defendant Carpo and Defendant DeFeo contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's Excessive Force claim because Plaintiff's rights were not clearly established at the time of the incident; and

JOYCE v. DIXON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2024

Officer Dixon contends the maneuvers did not violate clearly established law, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Dixon Br. in Capps at 4–7; Dixon Br. in Joyce at 5–8.] … Such conduct does not violate any clearly established law. Accordingly, a finding of qualified immunity would be warranted in the alternative.

MAZZETTI v. THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 2019

To overcome qualified immunity the plaintiff bears the burden of showing both that her constitutional rights were violated, and that the rights violated were clearly established. Mammaro v. N.J. … This record clearly establishes that Zapata reasonably believed she was acting properly (and indeed was acting properly) and is thus entitled to summary judgment on the qualified immunity issue. IV.

Gunson v. James

364 F. Supp. 2d 455 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 12, 2005

The LTCSA directed the OPM to contract with qualified carriers and establish a program whereby federal employees and annuitants, current and retired members of the uniformed services, and their qualified relatives “may obtain … At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff satisfies this threshold “where the conduct alleged ... clearly state[s] a non-frivolous, prima facie case” and “the already established evidence indicates more than and ‘extremely

Monarch Entertainment Bureau, Inc. v. New Jersey Highway Authority

715 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 1989

The Authority is established as a “body corporate and politic, with corporate succession.” N.J.S.A. sec. 27:12B-4 (West Supp.1988). … The Court ruled that this provision clearly satisfied the clear articulation requirement because they made anticompetitive restraints “foreseeable.” ... the statutes clearly contemplate that a city may engage in anticompetitive

Thomason v. Norman E. Lehrer, P.C.

183 F.R.D. 161 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 27, 1998

Indeed, Rule 8(a) of the *168 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clearly describes what must be contained in “Claims for Relief.” 4 Accordingly, I find that the counterclaims asserted by Lehrer against Thomason qualify for … Since Baglini, by its terms, is limited to claims for abuse of process, it is clearly inapposite to Thomason's remaining state law claims.

ECKERT v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 2024

“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 constitutional … Plaintiff's claim was thus clearly established, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's excessive force claims.

George v. Siemens Industrial Automation, Inc.

182 F.R.D. 134 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 1998

Finally, the qualified immunity enjoyed by the work product doctrine can be overcome upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. 4 Sporck v. … If this material were work product, it would be considered "ordinary" work product and therefore would be afforded only a qualified immunity- .