Case law

FRANKLIN v. RIVERSIDE TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2020

Qualified Immunity Defendants move for summary judgment asserting that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … The qualified immunity analysis first considers whether there was a constitutional violation and, if so, whether the right violated was clearly established at the time of

Hanson v. United States

712 F. Supp. 2d 321 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2010

Moreover, it is well-established that a federal prisoner may bring suit under the FTCA. United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 , 83 S.Ct. 1850 , 10 L.Ed.2d 805 (1963). … New Jersey courts typically look at the reasonableness of a police officer’s use of force when the officer raises the defense of qualified immunity under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

RHETT v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 2019

The doctrine of sovereign immunity extends to any state agency that qualifies as an “arm of the state” and to state officials acting in their official capacity. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. … The Third Circuit has made it clear that DCA is “a principle department ‘established in the Executive Branch of State Government’ and thus qualifies for sovereign immunity.”

Township of West Orange v. Whitman

8 F. Supp. 2d 408 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 1998

It “is clear ... that a member of the general public may not qualify” as a foreseeable plaintiff. … Pituso established that when government instrumentalities are entitled to immunity from local zoning ordinances, they may not “exercise[] [that immunity] in an unreasonable fashion so as to arbitrarily override all important

Searight v. State of NJ

412 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 6, 1976

At the founding of the nation, there was no question that a citizen of New Jersey could not sue that State anywhere because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. In Chisholm v. … Houdini has so far failed to establish communication from the spirit world (See E. L.

American Hawaiian Ventures, Inc. v. Latuharhary

257 F. Supp. 622 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 2, 1966

Such a lien cannot be established since no maritime contract with it nor injury of which it was the instrumentality is alleged. 1 Benedict 617 (6th Ed. 1940). … The first question clearly is a matter within this Court’s broad discretion. On the basis of the entire factual situation appearing from the record, I conclude it must be answered in the affirmative.

Stroby v. Egg Harbor Township

754 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 10, 2010

(Pl.’s Brief p. 6) The nature of the acts alleged by Plaintiff clearly show that Defendant Lancaster was not acting under state law. … Therefore Count Twelve must fail as a matter of law because Defendant Egg Harbor Township is immune from liability for Defendant Lancaster’s willful misconduct. IV.

SYMS v. COUNTY OF CAMDEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 2022

At the summary judgment stage, “the officer bears the burden of establishing his entitlement to qualified immunity.” … is thus entitled to qualified immunity.

Harel v. Rutgers, State University

5 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 24, 1998

As mentioned above, first plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon these three requirements: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for, and was qualified for tenure but was … Because the Court dismisses plaintiff's §■ 1983 equal protection claims against Seneca and Lawrence, there is no need to address their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

HEARD

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

clearly established law” (citation omitted)). … New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency, 814 F.3d 164, 171 (3d Cir. 2016), as amended (Mar. 21, 2016) (explaining that caseworkers are protected by qualified immunity unless clearly established law puts them on notice

GOODELL v. LANIGAN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 31, 2020

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

Smith v. Township of East Greenwich

519 F. Supp. 2d 493 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 2007

Therefore, Smith must establish that Defendants’ conduct constituted state action or action under the color of law, and that the conduct deprived her of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … Defendants challenge Smith’s ability to establish prong four, arguing that the promotion went to Sergeant Jenkins, who was more qualified due to his superior disciplinary record.

Fischer v. Allied Signal Corp.

974 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 1997

To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under federal law, a plaintiff must show that (1) he was in a protected group; (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) his employment nevertheless was terminated or … The statements promise neither to protect Fischer from termination, nor to immunize him from the effects of a reorganization.

MANENTE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2026

Qualified immunity does not apply however, when the facts “taken in the light most favorable to the party claiming injury,” show (1) that the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly … But that right was not clearly established when Officer Mattura arrested Plaintiff in 2020.

IDUMONYI v. BERGEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 16, 2022

“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 … Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Kim is entitled to qualified immunity at this time.

Borough of Maywood v. United States

679 F. Supp. 413 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 1988

Since the complaint, as well as the record as a whole, fails to reveal the existence of a lien held by the government, the Borough has failed to establish that the Congress has waived sovereign immunity on this statutory … Even if reasonable, the decisions are null and void in the face of such a clearly conflicting Congressional directive.

BRUSCIANELLI v. HICKS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2021

” and second, the court must determine “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” … State Defendants’ argument for qualified immunity consists largely of legal boilerplate.

BEY v. KRANZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 25, 2020

not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Second, the court must “decide whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Id.

Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp.

705 F. Supp. 1048 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 10, 1989

Plaintiff may establish a prima fa-cie case by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) was dismissed despite being qualified; (4) was replaced … It is also undisputed that plaintiff was qualified for the position from which he was terminated. Plaintiff has clearly met his burden of establishing a prima facie case.

Snyder v. Baumecker

708 F. Supp. 1451 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 1989

It is now well settled that, absent a clear waiver by a state of its eleventh-amendment immunity or a proper congressional abrogation of that immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims brought by an individual … Thus, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint clearly would not withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.