Case law

Hurley v. Hurley

230 N.J. Super. 493 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1988

[Emphasis supplied] The portion emphasized was clearly added after the initial draft as it was in a different type and pitch and inserted between two paragraphs. … Plaintiff urges the court to view the property settlement agreement as a contract which contains fully bargained-for exchanges so as to immunize the issue of alimony from modification.

Andris Arias v. County of Bergen

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 2024

The Park, established in 1960, 1 consists of 130 acres of land in Paramus. … It is well established that this immunity is available to public entities. Trimblett v. State, 156 N.J. Super. 291, 295 (App. Div. 1977).

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.

Henebema v. South Jersey Transportation Authority

430 N.J. Super. 485 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 2013

City of Minneapolis, 707 N.W.2d 669, 675 (Minn.2006) (stating that “in the context of qualified immunity, a case should be submitted to the jury when the facts giving rise to the applicability of qualified immunity were * … “there is a genuine dispute concerning predicate facts material to the qualified immunity issue, there can be no summary judgment.”

Torres v. City of Perth Amboy

329 N.J. Super. 404 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 2000

To pierce section 3-3's qualified immunity, a plaintiff must prove more than ordinary negligence. See id. at 294 , 473 A. 2d 554 (stating that recklessness usually denies good faith). [ Id. at 365 , 676 A. 2d 1083 .] … The record before us does not establish that Montalvo was engaged in a pursuit of a fleeing person and, therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted on the basis of section 2b(2) immunity. [2] We reverse and remand

Monaghan v. Holy Trinity Church

275 N.J. Super. 594 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 1994

that the Legislature clearly made available to the parish. … This statutorily established public policy is consistent with the Legislature's expressed intent in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-10 that the immunity granted by the Act is to be liberally construed so as to afford immunity to the greatest

Communications Workers v. Whitman

335 N.J. Super. 283 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 2000

When the matter was considered by the trial court on remand, a qualified immunity issue was also raised and adjudicated. … Although we view favorably the decisional rationale employed by Judge Shuster in disposing of those claims, especially his reliance on defendants' qualified immunity, see Harlow v.

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.

JENNIFER BUDDY VS. JONATHAN E. KNAPP CORRINE BUDDY VS. JONATHAN E. KNAPP DAMIEN CONNEEN VS. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (L-1037-16, L-1046-16, and L-1049-16, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 17, 2021

In addition, the record clearly establishes that a safe alternative route existed for westbound drivers to access WaWa's driveway entrances. … , even though other antecedent or surrounding conduct might constitute acts or action that would otherwise be subject to the qualified immunity."

JH v. Mercer County Youth Detention Center

396 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 29, 2007

The judge thus concluded that the County defendants were immunized from liability by the immunity provisions of the TCA. … We hold that the Detention Center qualifies as a "person standing in loco parentis within the household" as to plaintiff within the meaning of the CSAA and that the County defendants are not immune under the TCA, based on

Steward v. Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N.J. Highway Authority, 122 N.J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

McNesby v. State

231 N.J. Super. 568 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1989

Any liability established by the act is subject to immunity created by the law. N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b). … While desiring a dual goal: that a mental hospital provide a safe environment where patients may exercise as much freedom as possible, we conclude that the Legislature clearly intended to immunize such decisions on terms

Wooley v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders

218 N.J. Super. 56 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 1987

The county moved for summary judgment on the ground of the immunity granted under N.J.S.A. 59:4-6. … In ruling in favor of the county, the motion judge concluded that the design or plan immunity was applicable and further that plaintiffs had failed to establish that defendant's conduct with reference to the maintenance of

Auerbach v. Jersey Wahoos Swim Club

368 N.J. Super. 403 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 2004

"[A]n entity qualifies for charitable immunity when it `(1) was formed for non-profit purposes; (2) is organized exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes; and (3) was promoting such objectives and purposes … Defendant is undisputedly a non-profit organization and contends that it also met the second and third prongs to qualify for charitable immunity.

O'CONNELL v. State

335 N.J. Super. 427 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 11, 2000

Thus, even when a provision of the TCA establishes liability, that liability is ordinarily negated if the public entity possesses a corresponding immunity. Rochinsky v. … NOTES [1] N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7a provides absolute immunity to a qualified organization from liability to a "beneficiary, to whatever degree, of the works of such nonprofit corporation, society, or association[]."

Rachel A. Parsons v. Mullica Township Board of Education

440 N.J. Super. 79 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 2015

The Supreme Court in Kemp found that "N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 of the TCA is consistent with that policy," because N.J.S.A. 59:6-4 establishes a "general rule of absolute immunity." … However, "[a]ny liability of a public entity established by this act is subject to any immunity of the public entity." N.J.S.A. 59:2-1(b).

Roman v. City of Plainfield

388 N.J. Super. 527 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 6, 2006

City of Newark . . . that Stewart establishes an absolute municipal immunity for deteriorated sidewalks." … The court reached that conclusion because the language of N.J.S.A. 59:4-2 itself establishes only a partial and qualified immunity for dangerous conditions of public property. Id. at 440 , 734 A. 2d 762 .

Steward v. Borough of Magnolia

134 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1975

[At 241] Thus, despite the substantial erosion of interspousal immunity, there are clearly some areas in which the doctrine is still viable. Paraphrasing what was said in Pearce v. N. J. Highway Authority, 122 N. J. … It clearly does not encompass any immunity available to the employee for a reason other than his public employment, such as an interfamilial relationship.

Peprah v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.

257 N.J. Super. 132 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1992

N.J.S.A. 17:30E-7, in relevant part, provides: Pursuant to the plan of operation, the association shall have the power and duty to: * * * * * * * * (e) Arrange for the issuance of automobile insurance to any qualified applicant … Torts *138 such as conversion, spoilation of evidence, assault, battery and the like are clearly outside the intended scope of duties of a servicing carrier for the Association.

Hughes v. County of Burlington

99 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1968

It was also established that engineering officials of the county and state highway departments had endorsed their *411 approval of the plans for the reconstruction of the road pursuant to federal aid requirements. … Plaintiff adduced the testimony of two engineering experts qualified as to knowledge of highway construction standards.