Case law

Township of Middletown v. N/E Regional Office, United States Postal Service

601 F. Supp. 125 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 10, 1985

Consequently, the court will operate on the assumption that the Postal Service is the sole defendant and, thus, that the arguments about the propriety of removal and the immunity from zoning regulations as they relate to … Thus, the relevant authorities establish that the Postal Service is not bound to observe the land use regulations of Middletown Township.

FREEMAN v. SCHAFFER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 5, 2019

qualified immunity for Plaintiff’s Section 1983 and NJCRA claims. … A defendant is entitled to qualified immunity “when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

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

Nor does it identify any clearly established law that the Court overlooked when ruling that Ruschke was entitled to qualified immunity. … None of Gage’s arguments persuade the Court that its immunity rulings—which rested on /egal grounds—were in error.

WESTERN FUNDING, INC. v. SOUTH SHORE TOWING, INC.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 11, 2022

Accordingly, NJTA is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and, for that reason, NJTA also does not qualify as a “person” that is subject to suit under section 1983. … Balancing the three factors together, I find that NJTA qualifies as an arm of the state and is therefore immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Whitman

136 F. Supp. 2d 343 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2001

Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses The parties have also called for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims that the Regulations violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Equal … designated by the federal Surface Transportation and Assistance Act of 1982 (the “STAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 31111 et seq., as those roads that make up the "National System of Interstate and Defense Highways and those classes of qualifying

DOE v. SMALL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2023

Qualified immunity focuses on whether a plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated and how “clearly established” those rights were at the time of the violation. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232. … Finding that La’Quetta is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not abuse John Doe herself would put qualified immunity at odds with § 1983 and undermine well-established theories of § 1983 liability.

BYRD v. ATLANTIC CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY

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

To overcome the immunity, a plaintiff must show “(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.” … He violated Plaintiff’s clearly established right and therefore is not entitled to qualified immunity. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542.

BELLINGER v. THE CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 2025

Plaintiff argues that qualified immunity does not shield Defendants because they arrested him without probable cause, in violation of his clearly established constitutional rights. (Opp. at 11-13.) … “Under our precedents, officers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at

JENTIS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 20, 2023

Second, it is well established that the NJDOL Board of Review and DCPP are also entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as arms of the State of New Jersey. … the Plaintiff is suing the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities, they are entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights

GREENE v. PEREZ

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2020

Qualified Immunity To assess whether qualified immunity is warranted, the Court engages in a two- part inquiry. Forbes v. … A right is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity if a reasonable state actor under the circumstances would understand that his conduct violates that right. Williams v.

WALKER v. CITY OF NEWARK

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

Berger v. Internal Revenue Service

487 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 22, 2007

A statute qualifies under this exemption if it “(A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or … Williams’s time sheets-personal records which apply to a particular individual-qualify as files covered under Exemption 6, and this Court determines that “release of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted

CATO v. THE TOWNSHIP OF ANDOVER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 29, 2019

Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … As such, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied. IV.

Bieregu v. Ashcroft

259 F. Supp. 2d 342 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2003

Clearly, Breard had procedurally defaulted any Vienna Convention claim he might have had, yet he and Paraguay contended before the Supreme Court that his Vienna Convention claim could be heard in federal court because the … Mexico asks that the United States establish a “meaningful remedy at law” for violations of Article 36, including barring the imposition of “any procedural penalty for the failure timely to raise a claim or defense based

KELLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2026

reference qualified immunity. … (recognizing “the general legislative intent in the Act to establish immunity as the general rule”).

Schultz v. Yeager

293 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 21, 1967

There is no merit to petitioner’s claim of immunity. … The statute clearly grants immunity from criminal prosecution to an individual who, after claiming his privilege against self-incrimination, is compelled to testify or produce documentary evidence.

Freund v. Florio

795 F. Supp. 702 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 1992

Additionally, defendants contend that this action is barred in its entirety by the grant of immunity to states in the Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. … Colleges; defendants had “adduced evidence that physical and mental abilities decline with increasing age,” and mandatory retirement rule was rationally related to the state interest in quality education and getting the most qualified

GOVATOS v. MURPHY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 18, 2024

The Act established “the right of a qualified terminally ill patient, protected by appropriate safeguards, to obtain medication that the patient may choose to self-administer in order to bring about the patient … First, Defendants appear to challenge the patient-Plaintiffs’ standing because neither established that their illnesses (i.e., Stage IV lymphoma and Stage IV metastatic breast cancer) qualify them as “terminally

Boncek v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

105 F. Supp. 700 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 10, 1952

(Cases cited.) * * Today, even more clearly than in the past, ‘the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.’” 299 U.S. at pages 113, 114, 57 S.Ct. at pages … Russell & Co., (1938, 288 U.S. 476 , 53 S.Ct. 447, 450 , 77 L.Ed. 903 , which declared"that “the federal nature of the right to be established is decisive — not the source of the authority to establish it.”

STANKEVICIUS v. TOWN OF HARRISON, NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 10, 2022

The Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity if (i) they “violated a constitutional right” that was (ii) “was clearly established, such that ‘it would [have been] clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was … Under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, the court asks whether the rights at issue were clearly established at the time.