Case law

CORCORAN v. CAUWELS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 2019

In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, a court must determine {i) whether the alleged facts demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was “‘clearly established’ at … But at the pleading stage, “‘a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293.

DEBBLAY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads 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 conduct.”

Johnson v. Paparozzi

219 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2002

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … In making the determination that the establishment of a future parole eligibility date pursuant to (a) ... and (c) above is clearly inappropriate, the three-member panel shall consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2022

“Qualified immunity shields individual state officials from liability for damages on account of their performance of discretionary official functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Nowhere does the Complaint allege that Ruschke’s conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. Indeed, it fails to allege any right whatsoever.

Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mayor of Jersey City

207 F. 871 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 5, 1913

The first four sections of this revised act, originally passed in 1797, denounce mobs, provide for their suppression and punishment, and declare the duty and immunity of the peace officers in dealing with them. … This canon is well-nigh dogmatic and carries with it the presumption that the statute intended no further-alteration in the common law than that which is clearly expressed. End. §§ 127, 341.

Brennan v. William Paterson College

34 F. Supp. 3d 416 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2014

The burden of setting forth facts proving entitlement to immunity is borne by the party asserting such immunity, id. at *1, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126693 at *3 (citing Christy v. … Because WPU has not established sovereign immunity, such immunity cannot be extended to Gorski and Miller. See Kovats v.

ROBERSON v. BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2021

“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 … Because the evidence cannot show that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, qualified immunity defeats Plaintiffs’ § 1983 and NJCRA claims.

SKELTON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 4, 2024

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity from suit, courts ask two questions: “(1) whether the officer violated a constitutional right,” and “(2) whether the right was clearly established, such

Thomason v. Lehrer

182 F.R.D. 121 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 21, 1998

A sanction is clearly warranted in this case under Rule 11(b)(1). … immunity); Wyatt v.

THE ESTATE OF ULISSES M. RODRIGUEZ v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2019

Denial of Medical Treatment: Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Despite their reliance on only the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, Defendants do not discuss any law dealing with medical training for corrections officers, drug overdoses, or other similar issues.

MILLS v. NELSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 5, 2021

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from monetary damages in a § 1983 action unless a plaintiff establishes: (1) “that the official violated a statutory … or constitutional right;” and (2) “that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Watts v. Internal Revenue Service

925 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1996

A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is only proper, however, when the claim “ ‘clearly appears to be immaterial.’ ” Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1408 (3d Cir.) (quoting Bell v. … The Internal Revenue Service enjoys sovereign immunity as an agency of the United States unless that immunity has been waived by Congress. See Jorden v.

BURGA v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 15, 2020

The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right was so clearly established that the officers should have known that they were committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances. … Here the right was not clearly established.

GIBSON v. VALVANO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 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 … “When properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Spady v. Bethlehem Area Sch.

Ammond v. McGahn

390 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 1975

IMMUNITY AND STATE ACTION First, defendants argue that they are immune from civil liability under the Civil Rights Act. In support of immunity, defendants cite Tenney v. … The court decided that, at best, the defendants had a qualified immunity, and left no doubt that the claim of immunity might not withstand the broad reach of federal power.

BROWN v. HADDON TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

381 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2005

The official immunity of the type asserted by Defendant is a colorable federal defense. Bahrs, 795 F.Supp. at 969 . … NJDEP does not dispute Defendant’s assertion that it is a person under the statute, and most courts have held that a corporation such as Defendant qualifies as a person. Crackau v.

RUIZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2020

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

EDWARDS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

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

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established

NASH v. COUNTY OF MERCER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified immunity protects 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 applies unless (1) the facts that a plaintiff has alleged show a violation of a constitutional right and, if so; (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s