Case law

HARRISON v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE

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

The burden of establishing entitlement to qualified immunity rests with the movant asserting the defense. Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 288 3d Cir. 2014). … “The qualified immunity inquiry contains two prongs: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time of the violation

PRATT v. ANN KLEIN FORENSIC CENTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2019

“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 constitutional … If the court concludes that the defendant’s conduct did violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right, then it must deny the defendant the protection afforded by qualified immunity.

Bulloch v. United States

487 F. Supp. 1078 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 1980

Tool Co., 64 N.J. 159 , 313 A.2d 609 (1974) (despite lack of legal marriage, de facto spouse qualifies as dependent under workers’ compensation statute). … Similarly, the common law conception of the marital relationship has not been immune to reexamination. See, e. g., Trammel v.

Brown v. Delaware River Port Authority

10 F. Supp. 3d 556 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2014

Under that framework, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. The elements of a prima facie case depend on the facts of the particular case, and it cannot be established on a one-size-fits-all basis. … June 27, 2013), which holds that in order to present a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must establish that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position at issue; (3)

Dungee v. Northeast Foods, Inc.

940 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 3, 1996

To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he belongs to a protected category; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his … Plaintiff, a woman over forty, clearly falls within the class of persons protected by the statutes. 2 Plaintiff applied for and was minimally qualified for the job. Despite her qualifications, she was not hired.

D.G. v. Somerset Hills School District

559 F. Supp. 2d 484 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 18, 2008

Dep’t of Educ., 301 F.3d 952, 957 (8th Cir.2002) (holding that state officials were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the plaintiffs’ IDEA claims because the plaintiffs could not recover compensatory or punitive … To make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff usually must establish that he or she (1) has a disability, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) has suffered an adverse action because

HINES v. BOROUGH OF BELMAR

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

Qualified immunity shields police officers from liability unless they violated clearly established rights. … light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.”

KIDWAI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

Thus, while we tend to discuss prosecutorial immunity based on alleged acts, our ultimate analysis is whether a defendant has established absolute prosecutorial immunity from a given claim … “Meaning to earn the protections of absolute immunity, a defendant must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity ‘clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint.’” Fogle, 957 F.3d at 161 (quoting Wilson v.

GOYDOS v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY

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

Libutti from this claim pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, specifically because Plaintiffs’ SAC failed to allege that a constitutional right was clearly established. (/d. 15-16.) … “Qualified immunity shields officials ‘from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

THOMAS v. TRUMP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 21, 2021

Typically, class counsel “must be qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct proposed litigation,” but courts have not established a definite standard “for what constitutes sufficient legal expertise.” … Plaintiff, however, provides no explanation as to why he is qualified to represent this proposed class action.

GOLDBERG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

immunity in this matter in any event as it has not been clearly established that prisoners have a right of personal, telephonic access to family court matters in which they are represented by counsel. … Dist., 800 F.3d 633, 637-40 Gd Cir. 2015) (civil rights defendant entitled to qualified immunity where the alleged constitutional violation is not “clearly established” by Supreme Court precedent or robust consensus

RAMZIDDIN v. ANGELO J. ONFRI, ESQ.

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 20, 2022

Plaintiff argues that MCPO Defendants acted outside their “judicial capacity” and are not entitled to qualified immunity. a. … By acting as prosecutors and advocates for the State, both Onofri and Hadley have overcome the presumption of qualified immunity.

United States v. Abraham

29 F. Supp. 2d 206 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 23, 1998

They confer benefits under the immunity statute, too. … does not itself afford the benefit of immunity, but rather moves the court to grant it, so § 201(c)(2) does not implicate the immunity statute.

Tripo v. Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center

845 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 13, 2012

These physicians also wear nametags that clearly identify their association with the State of New Jersey — UMDNJ. … The purpose of the Act is to “reestablish the immunity of public entities while coherently ameliorating the harsh results of the [sovereign immunity] doctrine.” Beauchamp v.

Gewertz v. Jackman

467 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 1979

There is clearly jurisdiction over the subject matter, since the cause of action “arises under” the federal constitution, Powell v. … VI of the United States Constitution, clearly mandates this conclusion. See In re Grand Jury Proceedings, supra at 582; Bond v.

THE ESTATE OF FREDDY BAEZ JR. v.CAMDEN COUNTY

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

right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct. … For the reasons that follow, Officers Painchaud and Kerper are entitled to qualified immunity because no reasonable jury could find that they violated a clearly established Constitutional right.

TRUSSELL v. MONMOUTH COUNTY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 26, 2025

constitutional right is clearly established.” … Accordingly, the Court considers, under the second prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, “whether the asserted constitutional right is clearly established.” Karkalas,845 F.

Township of Long Beach v. City of New York

445 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 24, 1978

The court did “not address these difficult issues, however, because there is a legal bar which clearly precludes the maintenance of this suit under the [plaintiff’s] theory: sovereign immunity.” Id. at 123 . … I reject this argument and find that the action is not barred by sovereign immunity since “it is clear from the language of [the FWPCA] and its legislative history that Congress intended to waive sovereign immunity as to

LOVE v. JOHN DOES 1-9

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2021

rights and (2) that the constitutional right violated was clearly established. … On this motion, however, Defendants’ briefing on qualified immunity consists of brief boilerplate legal standard and a citation to one case which found it was not clearly established that a prisoner was “entitled to place

LASCHE v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2019

Qualified Immunity Government officials enjoy qualified immunity so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether a state actor is entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).