Case law

FORD v. WARDEN RICHARD SMITH

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

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity ... unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … The Court denies qualified immunity at this time.

United States v. Park Side Court, Inc.

257 F. Supp. 177 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 1966

Analysis of this case leads to a conclusion, that in fact there was no meeting of the minds regarding ultimate terms and conditions establishing a reinstatement contract. … The record in this case does not point to the manifest establishment of a mutual understanding and agreement on essential terms for the proposed reinstatement.

Condus v. Howard Savings Bank

986 F. Supp. 914 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 1997

record that can qualify as a business record. … Also, Howard itself considered Speer to be well qualified to make a trustworthy and accurate assessment. Mr.

RAMNANAN v. KEIFFER

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

The Third Circuit recognizes two kinds of immunity under § 1983: qualified immunity and absolute immunity. Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir. 2006). … Mar. 30, 2021) (“It is long established that under New Jersey law . . . prosecutorial immunity is not absolute like its federal counterpart.”).

ALEXANDER v. BOROUGH OF PINE HILL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 18, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … The Third Circuit has clearly explained that “some ‘unreliability or exculpatory evidence’ will not ‘fatally undermine[]’ probable cause otherwise established.”

United States v. Lewis

862 F. Supp. 1277 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 29, 1994

Also, defendant would seek to establish that the 1981 Armed Robbery Conviction was constitutionally invalid because there was not a sufficient factual basis to support the charge that the offense qualified as an “armed robbery … Similarly, the language of that version of the Application Note was devoid of any clearly stated intention that the Guidelines authorize such collateral attacks.

DAVIS v. YATES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from Siability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … “[I]fa reasonable [official] is not on notice that his or her conduct under the circumstances is clearly unlawful, then application of qualified immunity is appropriate.” /d.

Leonen v. Johns-Manville

135 F.R.D. 94 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 1990

In order to fall within the protection of Rule 26(b)(3), the party must establish that the document or tangible thing was “prepared in anticipation of litigation.” … While the federal attorney-client privilege is absolute, the New Jersey state privilege is qualified. Compare Diversified Industries, Inc. v.

MAGLIOLI v. ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION I

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

immune (a slip and fall at a medical facility). … The plain language may be set aside only if strict application would produce an absurd result, one that is clearly contrary to legislative intent.

UNDERWOOD v. CAMDEN COUNTY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 28, 2024

entitled to qualified immunity. … Thus, all Defendants will be subject to the qualified immunity standard.

Parsons v. United States Postal Service

380 F. Supp. 815 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 11, 1974

In so doing, the policy was established that delivery to new areas which qualify for “city delivery” should normally be by motorized carrier to curb-line or “cluster boxes”; door-to-door delivery was limited to homes with … The determination to deliver on a door-to-door or “cluster box” basis is clearly aimed at achieving the most efficient use of postal employees.

Mullen v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

100 F. Supp. 2d 249 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 1999

The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, was not unconditional. … Jersey City, 140 N.J.Super. 96 , 100-103, 355 A.2d 214 (Law Div.1976) (“It is a firmly established rule in American jurisprudence that acts in derogation of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed and that provisions

Armano v. Martin

157 F. Supp. 3d 392 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 21, 2016

“It also necessarily implies such degree of misconduct or. culpability on the part of the office holder as clearly implicates the public interest in precluding his continuance in that particular office.” Id. … whether absolute immunity applies.

BATISTA v. CITY OF PERTH AMBOY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 23, 2020

Moreover, the individual Defendants here are entitled to the protections of qualified immunity, which shields government officials from liability for damages so long as their conduct does not violate “clearly established … A plaintiff can overcome the protections of qualified immunity if (1) the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or federal right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established.” Id.

United States v. Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties

997 F. Supp. 593 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 1998

After reviewing the qualifications submitted by vendors, establish a list of responding vendors and designate those vendors which are qualified to provide the wastewater treatment service, (Id at 58:27-7); 4. … The Agreement clearly states a fixed term of duration and should be construed as such.

Hill v. Dobin

358 B.R. 130 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 4, 2006

Factual determinations, however, may be set aside by the district court only if they are clearly erroneous. See Fed. Rule Bankr.Proc. 8013; J.P. Fyfe, Inc. of Fla., 891 F.2d at 69 . … The debtor bears the burden of establishing that these requirements are met. In re Adams, 302 B.R. 535, 540 (6th Cir. BAP 2003).

Ajay Nutrition Foods, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

378 F. Supp. 210 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 5, 1974

It is thus clear under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Co., supra; Dalehite v. United States, supra; Blackmar v. … The instant complaint is clearly grounded on a libel and not a negligence theory. 13 .

Modern Tool Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.

100 F. Supp. 595 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 1951

However, as that case clearly indicates, the carrier is not an insurer. … From the testimony of these men, of the rigger who unloaded the car, and from the photographs taken of the interior of the car before the machines were unloaded, it was clearly established how the machines were secured.

Thomas v. Ford Motor Co.

111 F. Supp. 2d 529 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2000

If a proposed amendment is not clearly futile, then denial of leave to amend is improper.” 6 Charles A. Wright, Arthur r. … “That immunity is predicated on the need for unfettered expression critical to advancing the underlying government interest at stake in those settings.” Erickson, 117 N.J. at 563 , 569 A.2d 793 .

Paydon v. Hawk

960 F. Supp. 867 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 9, 1997

of custody for an inmate who completes a qualifying drug abuse treatment program. … Obviously, such a decision is clearly rationally related to the legitimate interests of the BOP.