Case law

CAMPS v. SCHOLTZ

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

qualified immunity. … “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

United States v. Midwestern Pouch Express, Inc.

662 F. Supp. 207 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1987

Based on the clearly established fact that Midwestern carried “property for compensation or hire” as an air transporter and not incidental to or within the scope of any existing business, I find that 135 is applicable to … Landy, supra, 705 F.2d at 632 (facts established that lessor and crew supplier kept operational control).

GOYDOS v. RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY

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

“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.” … The Eighth Circuit disagreed, that the officer’s allegations failed to allege the violation of a clearly established Fifth Amendment right and that the Sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity

CARLO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 3, 2025

Of the conditions Plaintiff lists, several are clearly rationally related to the jail’s legitimate interests: triple booking clearly serves the interest of dealing with overcrowding, a lack of meal variety clearly does … not qualify as punishment, and although Plaintiff states that he experiences second-hand smoke, he alleges the jail is smoking free.

MCKINNEY v. CHRISTOPHER HOLMES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 1, 2024

Holmes is further protected by qualified immunity because clearly established law did not put him on notice that failure to have procedures in place to forward an inmate’s medical complaint to the prison’s medical professionals … Yost, 63 F.4th 211, 228 (3d Cir. 2023) (a defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the second prong of the qualified immunity defense, if he meets his burden to show that reasonable officials under the circumstances

BAREL v. JUDICIARY COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2020

immunity, which “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 person would have known … “[T]he sale of [Plaintiff’s] property did not violate any clearly established rights because the Sheriff acted pursuant to a valid state court judgment.” Gage, 521 F.

MESSINA v. THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 14, 2021

Accordingly, the CDC has clearly opined that these constitute “vaccines.” … New Jersey colleges and universities are allowed to “establish additional requirements for student immunizations and documentation that such institution shall determine appropriate and which is recommended by

OCASIO v. EADY

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2020

argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. … “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are ‘shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Trail v. Green

206 F. Supp. 896 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 2, 1962

Defendant argues that by virtue of the New Jersey charitable immunity statute, supra, the matter in controversy cannot be considered to exceed the sum or value of $10,000. … We must bear in mind examination of the authorities establishes that the acknowledged policy is non-sympathy *900 to expanding federal jurisdiction in diversity cases. In Horton v.

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero

41 F. Supp. 2d 478 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 8, 1998

Bowes was qualified to testify as an expert in obstetrics and gynecology, including abortions. D. … An induction might then qualify as a “partial-birth abortion” under the Act.

Carlini v. Velez

947 F. Supp. 2d 482 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2013

No. 109-171, § 6012 (2005), codified as amendments to 42 U.S.C. § 1396p. 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(l)(G) establishes the general rule that an annuity is an asset. … The Eleventh Amendment “gives the state immunity from an award of retroactive benefits, except for the three months immediately preceding an outcome in [Plaintiffs] favor.” Sorber v.

HAROLD v. BAGLEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2022

“[T]he threshold for establishing this exception is a high one[.]” Id. … Even if this act was part of a judge’s administrative duties to which absolute immunity would not apply, Defendant Malestein would have qualified immunity because sending Plaintiff

Brown v. United States

496 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 12, 1980

If the statute of limitations applies, the argument is that consent to suit by waiver of sovereign immunity does not *905 exist, and so there is no subject-matter jurisdiction. … Reference to the 1900 census figures shows that counties so qualifying (in addition to Essex) were Camden, Hudson and Passaic.

Voilas v. General Motors Corp.

73 F. Supp. 2d 452 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 1, 1999

Consistent with the Third Circuit’s mandate that trial courts should not impose overly rigorous requirements to establish expertise, this Court finds that Dr. … Tinari qualifies as an expert for the purpose of clarifying the liability issues presented in this case. II. The Daubert Analysis of Dr. Tinari’s Proposed Trial Testimony Having established that Dr.

Platinum Record Co., Inc. v. Lucasfilm, Ltd.

566 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1983

It presents no clear-cut definition, however, which would set out exactly what does or does not qualify as exhibition of a motion picture. … It has already been established that it is immaterial whether plaintiff anticipated all potential future developments in the manner of exhibiting motion pictures.

Sheridanville, Inc. v. Borough of Wrightstown

125 F. Supp. 743 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 14, 1954

However, while the military personnel may not vote under New Jersey law, it has not been shown that the eligible members of the family of military personnel and other civilians housed in the projects, otherwise .qualified … plaintiffs for it is noteworthy to observe that the arrangements call for tenants to absorb the burden by returning to the plaintiffs their proportionate share of any levy, escrow funds of the tenants money being already established

EVANS v. NEWARK CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2023

“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 … Having already determined that the officers’ actions did violate a clearly established constitutional right, I conclude that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity under the TCA on the grounds of objective

GRECO v. LAIELLI

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

Moreover, the defendant in Wilson raised qualified immunity as a defense, so the Third Circuit engaged in the familiar two-step analysis for Section 1983 claims: first, the Court determines whether the plaintiff alleged … deprivation of an actual constitutional right, and if so, the analysis proceeds to consideration of whether such right was clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivation.

United States v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.

210 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 26, 1962

The Government’s interest in securing the documents in question apparently is to establish the fact of defendant’s size. … It does not require petitioner to keep a copy of its report nor does it grant copies of the report not in the hands of the Census Bureau an immunity from legal process.

KIM v. ALI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 2024

Judge Ali is entitled to judicial immunity on all claims against him; to say otherwise would upset the very purpose of judicial immunity. … Even if these claims were not precluded, the claims are clearly not ripe for litigation and must be dismissed.