Case law

Carroll v. Delaware River Port Authority

89 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2015

See Brief in Support of Magistrate Appeal, p. 4 (“Plaintiff maintains that the need to be qualified at the time of the promotions ... is not at issue in this case.”). Plaintiffs position is clearly wrong. … According to Defendant, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff was not physically capable of performing the jobs for which he applied (i.e., not qualified), and that Plaintiff knew he was not qualified.

ROSSI v. THE CITY OF TRENTON

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

the defense of qualified immunity. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that: (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) “the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's

United States v. 662 Boxes of Ephedrine

590 F. Supp. 2d 703 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 29, 2008

The common questions of law and fact at issue in the two proceedings clearly warrant consolidating these actions. … Therefore, the United States is not immune from suit based on the seizure of the defendant property.

DIAZ v. MERCED

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 2024

Defendants filed their Answer on October 19, 2021, summarily denying the allegations and raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. (D.E. 20.) … Notwithstanding, qualified immunity would attach because, based on the foregoing, there was no violation of a clearly established right. See e.g. Mirabella v.

Bellocchio v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

16 F. Supp. 3d 367 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 15, 2014

To have a protected property interest, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it” or “a unilateral expectation of it,” but rather must have “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” … Ann. §§ 59:4-2 , 4-3 (establishing liability of public entity for injury caused by dangerous conditions on its property).

McNeil v. McDonough

515 F. Supp. 113 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 1980

These well established principles and practices, however, have not been clearly applied in employment discrimination cases, whether under Title VII or § 1981, et seq., even in non-jury cases. … or, if equally qualified, had less seniority.

BYRD v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY JOHN/JANE DOE DECISION MAKERS 1-10

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … Next, the Court proceeds to step two of the qualified immunity analysis, wherein “the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing that the defendant's conduct violated some clearly established statutory or constitutional

Foster v. Township of Hillside

780 F. Supp. 1026 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 1992

Furthermore, a public official is protected by qualified immunity from a suit under § 1983, if he or she can show that the “offending conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which a … Because the courts have not yet “clearly established” the proper response required under the constitution, to a sexual harassment claim, the individual defendants raised the defense of qualified immunity properly.

MULLIN v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

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

or statutory rights and (2) that the rights violated were clearly established. … As an initial matter, with regard to the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, there is no dispute that the right at issue is clearly established.

Stehney v. Perry

907 F. Supp. 806 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 6, 1995

of her security-clearance revocation is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … Clearly, such an exemption “can arguably be said to result in a better-qualified group” of applicants for particularly important positions, Anderson, 845 F.2d at 1223, and therefore is consistent with equal protection.

LANE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 2022

“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 the challenged conduct.” … make out a violation of a constitutional right”; and (2) “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.” Pearson v.

GOULD v. O'NEAL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2022

such a violation, they are entitled to 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 a reasonable person

Matreale v. State of New Jersey Department of Military & Veterans Affairs

418 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 8, 2006

The non-moving party may not rest on its pleadings to oppose a summary judgment motion but must affirmatively come forward with admissible evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact. Celotex Corp. v. … It is beyond the competence of this Court to determine whether an Guardsman is qualified to be promoted to a higher rank, and outside its proper role to intrude upon the day to day operation of the military chain of command

Fruit Industries, Ltd. v. Metro Glass Bottle Co.

18 F. Supp. 489 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 1937

Plaintiff contends that by reason of the fact that the defendants are qualified to *492 do business in New Jersey and have nominated registered agents for the acceptance of processes within the state, under section 97 of … -This clearly means the place where the defendant actually -conducts his traffic and actually functions as a business concern.

STABILE v. CONKLIN

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

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants concede that the right to be free from physical force when not resisting arrest was a clearly established right at the time of the January 19th arrest.

United States v. 92 Buena Vista Ave., Rumson, Nj

738 F. Supp. 854 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 1, 1990

In addition, apart from the indictment, probable cause is established. … This reference to “all proceeds" clearly includes all types of property, including real and personal property. See United States v.

JAMES v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES

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

“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.

McKinley v. Skyline Corp.

900 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2012

Moreover, the Foster Affidavit establishes that Skyline was not involved in placing the kitchen chair at issue into the line of commerce. (Id. ¶ C5.) … However, the parties here are clearly proceeding under the assumption that Skyline’s motion seeks judg *412 ment on the claims Plaintiffs asserted in the amended complaint, and no party has raised an objection to the Court

FLEMING-MARTINEZ v. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 22, 2022

the doctrine of qualified immunity. … 2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Ackerley v. Commercial Credit Co.

111 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 2, 1953

That these cases are to be confined to-situations where a question of sovereign, immunity is involved is clearly indicated, by further comments from Judge Frank,, who noted, “If the suit were between private persons, it might … Jeffers and is clearly barred by the statute of lim- • itations.