Case law

Csizmadia v. Fauver

746 F. Supp. 483 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 17, 1990

Whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Allen plaintiffs’ claims depends on whether the Allen plaintiffs had a clearly established privacy or free exercise right in not being viewed naked or … As the above cases indicate, there is no clearly established method for balancing these competing interests, and certainly no clearly dictated result.

Hauptmann v. Wilentz

570 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 11, 1983

Qualified immunity shields an official from liability for § 1983 damages “insofar as [his] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Once again, however, Wilentz satisfies the Harlow test of immunity, since his alleged conduct would not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Carlino v. Gloucester City High School

57 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1999

Qualified Immunity The individual Moving Defendants are "entitled to qualified immunity if reasonable officials in the defendants' position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that … Thus, qualified immunity provides government officials with leeway in applying difficult or murky law, even if that law is clearly established.

Mantz v. Chain

239 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 2002

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 In moving for summary judgment of Mantz’s civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Defendants invoke the doctrine of qualified immunity. … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Rodriguez v. City of Passaic

730 F. Supp. 1314 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1990

Thus, for purposes of Kicha’s qualified immunity defense, plaintiff would be unable to show a violation of clearly established Fourteenth Amendment law. See Point V, infra. III. … Qualified immunity is predicated upon the “objective legal reasonableness” of an official’s conduct, and is warranted where that official has not violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.

Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Shinn

877 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 28, 1995

and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Because defendants’ actions in this case, even if taken in bad faith, did not violate plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

FARAGALLA v. JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2020

Qualified Immunity Otundo also argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … With respect to the second step of a qualified immunity analysis, this Court must “identify the right at issue and determine if that right was clearly established at the time of the officer’s action.” Estep v.

Jimenez v. New Jersey

245 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 20, 2003

in that any such right was not clearly established. … Government officials are generally granted qualified immunity and are “shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a

Estate of Soberal v. City of Jersey City

529 F. Supp. 2d 477 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 27, 2007

Qualified Immunity Turning to the Defendant officers’ claims of qualified immunity, the Court declines to grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant officers because immunity does not apply. 11 Qualified immunity is … legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time [the action] was taken.”

C.N. v. Ridgewood Board of Education

146 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 15, 2001

Qualified Immunity The individual defendants seek cover under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Municipal officers enjoy qualified immunity if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v.

Bostrom v. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services

969 F. Supp. 2d 393 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 26, 2013

Finally, Defendants assert they are entitled to qualified immunity because any such right was not clearly established by precedent. 1. … Therefore, while a violation of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights may have occurred, Defendants Broglin and Schuh are entitled to qualified immunity as it was not clearly established that their conduct was unlawful.

Rodriguez v. Torres

60 F. Supp. 2d 334 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 30, 1999

immunity because it is not clearly established that a hostile work environment claim may be predicated upon “reprisal rather than protected status,” nor is it clearly established that a hostile work environment claim not … Qualified Immunity Analysis Against this backdrop of legal precedent, we must determine whether defendant is entitled to qualified immunity based upon his argument that it was not clearly established as of the relevant time

Houston v. Township of Randolph

934 F. Supp. 2d 711 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 21, 2013

Qualified immunity “[Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability as long ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987), because “qualified immunity provides government officials with leeway in applying difficult or murky law, even if that law is clearly established.”

Luthe v. City of Cape May

49 F. Supp. 2d 380 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 25, 1999

Qualified immunity “shield[s officers] from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … In determining whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, both the existence of a clearly established right and the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions are questions of law for the Court to

Geod Corporation v. New Jersey Transit Corporation

678 F. Supp. 2d 276 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 20, 2009

Qualified Immunity State officials performing discretionary functions are generally immune from liability unless their conduct violates clearly established constitutional or statutory rights of which a reasonable person should … Assuming arguendo that the individual Defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right, they are still entitled to qualified immunity because such a right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged

Santiago v. City of Vineland

107 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 2000

The Defendants contend that even if Santiago can establish that they did not act with probable cause, they are entitled to qualified immunity on Santiago’s federal claim. … Because the qualified immunity analysis set forth in the brief of Romano and Gallo clearly contends that qualified immunity is available to the police officer defendants, and does not mention Romano and Gallo in their positions

Bocchino v. City of Atlantic City

179 F. Supp. 3d 387 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2016

are entitled to qualified immunity. … in question was clearly established.”

Davis v. City of Camden

657 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 6, 1987

Whether an official may prevail in a qualified immunity defense depends upon the “objective reasonableness of [his] conduct as measured by reference to clearly established law.” Harlow v. … Dell, 804 F.2d 796 , 803 (2nd Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1983); Ward v. County of San Diego, 791 F.2d 1329, 1333 (9th Cir.1986) (clearly established in 1981) with Fann v.

Ryan v. Burlington County

674 F. Supp. 464 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 9, 1987

This issue of qualified immunity is an issue for the court. … With specific reference to qualified immunity, the court must determine the objective legal reasonableness of the defendants’ actions assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time these actions

United States v. Sensient Colors, Inc.

649 F. Supp. 2d 309 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 2009

Sensient contends that “regardless of the outcome of the qualified immunity analysis — Rosoff must be deposed ...” 16 (Sensient Br. 8.) … A determination of qualified immunity, of course, is an entirely different situation.