Case law

Byrne v. Boys Baseball League

236 N.J. Super. 185 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 4, 1989

intention was to mandate the establishment of a program as a quid pro quo, as it were, for the immunity, thus granting it only to those volunteers who had actually participated in such a program. … The 1988 version does more than define, qualify, and standardize the prescribed safety program.

Perillo v. Dreher

126 N.J. Super. 264 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1974

The Legislature may, within constitutional limits, nullify or qualify a ruling. Rosenberg v. North Bergen, 61 N.J. 190 (1972). … Moreover, allowance of the Willis claim represents legislative recognition of established judicial policy to provide relief to the litigant before the court.

Winters v. City of Jersey City

120 N.J. Super. 129 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 28, 1972

Again, there was no mention of the specific "limited" immunity statute here under consideration. Moreover, the liability established by the Act is without limitation as to amount. … When the Legislature has intended that a governmental body should be immune, it has clearly and expressly said so. *147 Cf.

Devlin v. Greiner

147 N.J. Super. 446 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 28, 1977

The doctrine of absolute immunity with respect to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings is one firmly established in our law. La Porta v. Leonard, 88 N.J.L. 663 (E. & A. 1916); Rogers v. … Defendant clearly had a duty to those he observed to report accurately on their activities. He is a private detective, licensed under N.J.S.A. 45:19-12.

Stillwell v. McGrath

85 N.J. Super. 252 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 26, 1964

There is no doubt that Stillwell was qualified as a beneficiary of this section while engaged in the mission on which he was injured. … The immunity is one of the benefits of the law, and it clearly extends to the third-party defendant here.

Fa by Pa v. Wjf

280 N.J. Super. 570 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1995

To qualify for federal aid, states must provide for the reporting of child abuse and furnish immunity to the reporters. Id. at 790, 794; 42 U.S.C.A. § 5103 . … Some jurisdictions provide a qualified immunity to reporters of suspected child abuse.

McKinney v. East Orange Mun. Corp.

284 N.J. Super. 639 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 31, 1995

Our review of the record satisfies us that there was, at the least, a genuine question of fact respecting the qualified immunity defense and that the trial judge erred in excluding the proffered expert testimony. … We consider first the qualified immunity defense, beginning with the facts surrounding the issuance of the warrant. As we have noted, the warrant was issued on Woodson's affidavit dated December 29, 1986.

Campbell v. Campbell

294 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 12, 1996

In this case the plaintiff argues that the domestic violence order has established a "special relationship" between her and the Plainfield police and that therefore the statute does not provide immunity. … [t]he absolute immunity of section 3-5 applies to non-action or the failure to act in connection with the enforcement of the law, and the qualified immunity of section 3-3 applies to acts constituting enforcement of the law

Rocco v. NJ Transit Rail Operations

330 N.J. Super. 320 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 2000

Where a public entity is unable to perfect design immunity as a result of failure to establish proper approvals, liability may attach if there is sufficient evidence to show that the design defect represents a dangerous condition … The circumstances in this case simply do not qualify.

Alston v. City of Camden

332 N.J. Super. 240 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 27, 2000

To pierce section 3-3's qualified immunity, a plaintiff must prove more than ordinary negligence. … At the time, New Jersey municipalities enjoyed qualified sovereign immunity under the common law.

Baldassano v. High Point Insurance

396 N.J. Super. 448 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 2007

Plaintiff first contends that defendant failed to comply with the statutory requirements to qualify for immunity under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 because (1) the agent, not the insured, selected the level of UIM coverage on the coverage … Awany, 205 F.Supp.2d 279, 285-86 (D.N.J.2002) (holding that the requirements of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23 “are preconditions to qualifying for immunity under N.J.S.A 17:28-1.9”).

Hardwicke v. American Boychoir

368 N.J. Super. 71 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 26, 2004

clearly encompasses the sexually abusive conduct by the school's employees that has been alleged in this case. … Clearly, I would not question that assessment. Neither, if the allegations are established, would I minimize the horror of the vile transgressions assertedly perpetrated upon Mr.

Coyne v. State

366 N.J. Super. 578 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2004

In other words, DOT employees were implementing the immunized procedure established in the manual. … Whether those charged with implementing the discretionary standards established in the safety manual made choices that qualify for immunity cannot be determined without further development of the facts.

Shehaiber v. University of Medicine & Dentistry

360 N.J. Super. 330 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 23, 2003

Perimeters around the scene were established. But no one immediately entered the pool itself. … If extrication of this child from that pool constituted a life support service, it would be immune from liability under the specific qualified immunity of the Act.

Murphy v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.

45 N.J. Super. 478 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 1957

As to qualified privilege, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the justification for the ruling of the trial court that there was no genuine factual issue. … See also, Evans, "Legal Immunity for Defamation," 24 Minn. L. Rev. 607 , 610 (1940).

Sanchez v. Olivarez

94 N.J. Super. 61 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 1967

That being so, this court iterates the language of Justice Francis in Koplik : "The policy issue is clear and if a legislature wishes to abrogate the immunity, it ought to say so clearly and unequivocally." … Such status being required to establish interspousal immunity, if there is no status, then there can be no immunity. The cases clearly indicate this.

Palcsey v. Tepper

71 N.J. Super. 294 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1962

Our sister state of Pennsylvania has, however, definitely and clearly spoken regarding the matter sub judice. … In Johnson the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established clearly the principle that when the policy reasons for the imposition of an interspousal immunity from suit no longer exist, such a suit may be maintained.

Tontodonati v. City of Paterson

229 N.J. Super. 475 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 5, 1989

N.J.S.A. 54:5-114.9, which provided that the assignee of a tax sale certificate at public sale who obtained legal conveyance from the owner would not be entitled to a refund from the municipality, saying that the statute clearly … However, giving the words their ordinary meaning, while the assignments could be "actions" in the most literal sense, the words "administrative action" are qualified by the term "instituting," which implies the start of some

Birchwood Lakes Colony Club v. Medford Lakes

179 N.J. Super. 409 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1981

Plaintiff was under no obligation to establish as part of its case the absence of such immunity. The motion for judgment at the end of plaintiff's proofs was, of course, clearly premature. … We do not take the position that plan or design immunity could not have been established by the borough.

Jeanine Anthony v. County of Morris

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 2025

A defendant invoking qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal prior to suit "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law . . . ." Mitchell v. … The facts as alleged do not support a finding that defendants violated plaintiff's clearly established constitutional rights. They do not support an abrogation of qualified immunity.