Case law

United States v. Zirpolo

288 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 1, 1968

the immunity. … However, the Bins case, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the facts at bar.

RODRIGUES v. MAIN

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

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 … “The second prong of the qualified- immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Jd. at 656.

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.

GREENFIELD v. TRENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

“clearly established” at the time. … NJCRA is dismissed based on qualified immunity.

NJSR Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc.

979 F. Supp. 2d 513 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 2013

Compared to the CLA, the TCA less clearly suggests that state court jurisdiction is exclusive. The TCA does not contain the CLA’s initial admonition that the “courts ... of the state” shall have jurisdiction. … Supreme Court precedent, however, including the cases cited above, establishes that it incorporates a more general principle of sovereign immunity. .

CAPPS 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.

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity of the Individual NJDEP Defendants Plaintiffs suit also names three individuals—LaTourette, Squazzo, and Dench—who hold various positions within NJDEP.® The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] … A court hearing a claim to qualified immunity must determine both whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged constitutional

State of New Jersey v. Mocco

206 B.R. 691 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1997

On an appeal from the bankruptcy court, findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, but issues of law are properly reviewed by the district court in a plenary fashion. Bankr.Rule 8013; In re J.P. … Supreme Court has established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.” Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>- TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-14819

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2023

Qualified immunity is generally upheld on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint. Leveto v. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Gaul v. AT & T, INC.

955 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1997

Clearly, “unduly stressful” jobs do not constitute a recognized occupational classification. Therefore, the plaintiff is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working. … In that case, the court found that it would be unreasonable to require the defendant to “place plaintiff in a virtually stress-free environment and immunize him from any criticism in order to accommodate his disability.”

LIVESAY v. MURPHY

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

Defining the constitutional right at issue for qualified immunity purposes is critical in assessing whether or not that right was “clearly established.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff's burden to delineate the constitutional right that was violated and show that it was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue

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.

YOUNG v. CORTUNE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 2019

second prong of qualified immunity. … The Third Circuit recently addressed the “clearly established” prong in assessing qualified immunity. See Sauers v.

LE. L. v. BURLINGTON COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 22, 2024

Qualified immunity shields state officials sued in their personal capacity for damages so long as their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … But the constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity must be defined at a much more specific level of generality “to determine ‘whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established.’”

Hoffman Equipment, Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co.

750 F. Supp. 1222 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 16, 1990

This is an “essential fact” which Clark must establish in order to seek declaratory relief. ... … The court reasoned that: “Spouses domiciled in states that recognize interspousal immunity are no less careful when they drive through a state that has abolished the immunity.”

SHEPPERSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

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

Hernandez is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings In support of the qualified immunity defense, Hernandez argues that Plaintiff … was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’”

BANDA v. CORNIEL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2021

to qualified immunity. … Consequently, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing qualified immunity. Thomas v.

WITT v. CITY OF VINELAND

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

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim. … “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

Mosca v. Cole

384 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2005

applicant instead of a qualified white male applicant.” … When a white employee asserts that his employment was terminated based on a discriminatory animus, the McDonnell Douglas test for establishing a prima facie cases has three requirements: (i) plaintiff was qualified for the

CATALANO v. CITY OF TRENTON

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

Thus, qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). … “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.”