Case law

Leone v. Township of Deptford

616 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 2009

immunity, Pearson v. … violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”).

JAMES v. GLOBAL TELLINK CORPORATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 2, 2020

Qualified Immunity GTL alternatively argues that it is entitled to qualified immunity. GTL Br. at 30-32. … Thus, like in Richardson, Defendants are not entitled to claim qualified immunity. See 521 U.S. at 412.

State of NJ v. Bazin

912 F. Supp. 106 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 1995

The Ninth Circuit had dismissed the state’s appeal, reasoning that although the state had a clearly established right to appellate review under Arizona law, it had no such right under federal law, and federal law exclusively … Downey, supra (purposeful and knowing slap causing stinging sensation established disorderly persons offense of simple assault).

CONTE v. GOODWIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 15, 2021

“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 … “A right is clearly established for qualified immunity purposes where its contours are sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Sharp v.

Flego v. Philips, Appel & Walden, Inc.

514 F. Supp. 1178 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 21, 1981

Despo was employed as a compliance attorney at the AMEX from approximately December 7, 1978 until April 30, 1980, at which time he entered private practice and established his own law firm. Early in 1979, Mr. … Consequently, the court found that the NYSE and its employees were entitled to qualified immunity in an action alleging constitutional violations brought against them as a result of such disciplinary proceedings.

LOZANO v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

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

The court must withhold qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage if, based on the plaintiff’s adequately supported version of the facts, defendants violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights … established because “the violative nature of particular conduct [was] clearly established.’”

BEAM v. WOLF

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 14, 2023

The Court will begin its qualified immunity analysis with the second prong, which asks whether the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of its violation. … Therefore, because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that a constitutional right was violated, there is no need to address the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

CHITESTER v. DEPT OF CHILD PROTECTION PERMANENCY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 28, 2023

Here, in response to the DCPP Defendants’ qualified immunity argument, Plaintiff merely cites Supreme Court cases for the broad proposition that parents have a recognized fundamental right to “establish a home and bring … Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (“This Court has ‘repeatedly told courts . . . not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality.””) (quoting City & Cnty. of San Francisco y.

STATE OF NJ, DEPE v. Gloucester Env. Mgt. Serv.

821 F. Supp. 999 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 1993

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has thus noted that the Act intended to re-establish governmental immunity except as liability is otherwise permitted, stating: "The Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, reestablished … The New Jersey Tort Claims Act at N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b) states that "[a]ny liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity."

Chisolm v. Manimon

97 F. Supp. 2d 615 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 18, 2000

immunity against such claims. … Section 1983 Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , an injured party may pursue a claim against a *625 state actor based on “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United

NEGRETE v. STATE OF NJ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 29, 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.” … immunity’s second prong, the Individual Defendants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because “there was no clearly established precedent establishing that their conduct violated the Plaintiff's rights

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. China National Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.

702 F. Supp. 2d 320 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 1, 2010

The [H.R.] goes on to state: “The specific *337 purpose of the Sherman Act modification is: to more clearly establish when antitrust liability attaches to international business activities.” Id. at 2492. … Once the defendant’s status as a “foreign state” is established, the FSIA presumes the defendant’s immunity to be the rule, not an exception, see Saudi Arabia v.

MORRISON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2024

Zylkiewicz is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields government officials from suit and from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional … Consequently, even if Zylkiewicz were mistaken, he would still be entitled qualified immunity. IV.

In re Human Tissue Products Liability Litigation

255 F.R.D. 151 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 12, 2008

Discovery on the narrow issue of good faith immunity has been open since December 2007. 5 See CM/ECF Docket Entry No. 545. … To select thirty-eight (38) documents in a single category of documents, which are further subdivided into five additional categories by defense counsel, not only violates this Court’s Order, but clearly contravenes the Court

K.J. ex rel. Lowry v. Division of Youth & Family Services

363 F. Supp. 2d 728 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 2005

The rule seeks to screen out claims for which there is clearly no remedy, or where the plaintiff has no right to assert. Port Auth. v. Arcadian Corp., 189 F.3d 305, 311-12 (3d Cir.1999). … This immunity for licensing activities is a narrow exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity under the TCA. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:2-5 (1992).

PETLOCK v. NADROWSKI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 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 defendant official is entitled to qualified immunity if either prong is not satisfied. See id. at 244-45. Here, the Court exercises its “sound discretion” and assesses the “clearly established” prong first.

Ryan v. United States

233 F. Supp. 2d 668 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 2002

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States and its agencies cannot be sued unless there is consent to a waiver of sovereign immunity. United States v. … This argument is clearly flawed due to the unambiguous, though limited, duty of indemnification which A.R.G.C. undertook toward Vol-mar.

BERK v. THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2024

It is well established that in New Jersey, the Department of Human Services is entitled to immunity from damages, and thus the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. … Apr. 30, 2024) (“New Jersey state agencies established in the Executive Branch of State Government are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, regardless of the relief sought, unless an exception applies.”).

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States

111 F. Supp. 80 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 1953

of the government’s waiver of its sovereign immunity. … The answer clearly is in the negative.

Acosta v. Gaffney

413 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 12, 1976

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . In Perkins v. … But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution.