Case law

In Re Pettigrew

115 N.J. Eq. 401 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 26, 1934

The executors, after qualifying, merely continued his said employment on the same terms as were in effect at the time of the testator's death. … The unquestioned evidence clearly establishes that the executors, through Mr.

Tp. of Holmdel v. Nj Hwy. Auth

329 N.J. Super. 410 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 2000

That language does not establish what that tax immunity is for. Specifically, it does not say that any project engaged in by the Authority that might serve a public purpose is tax immune. … If it was not contemplated in 1968, it clearly is not entitled to a tax immunity.

Marley v. Palmyra Bor.

193 N.J. Super. 271 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 7, 1983

The provisions of the act primarily involved are those which establish immunity for law enforcement actions and for failure to enforce the law. … Consequently, the availability of public employee immunity may determine the liability of the municipality itself. The necessity for establishing *284 a workable interpretation of the two immunity provisions is clear.

Farrell v. Estell Manor Zoning Bd. of Adj.

193 N.J. Super. 554 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 10, 1984

They assert, however, that intervenor is entitled to a qualified immunity from the strict terms of the zoning ordinance and should, therefore, be permitted to operate a residential treatment and evaluation center at the subject … Defendants argue that assuming all of the above to be true the State's qualified immunity does not inure to the benefit of the plaintiffs and cannot be relied upon by the State which is the lessee and not the owner.

Flodmand v. STATE, INSTITUTIONS & AGENCIES DEP'T

175 N.J. Super. 503 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 29, 1980

It establishes the principle of vicarious liability for all public entities for "injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment" and thereby relies upon established … Clearly, the Department's design and structure of the Yardfields program represented a basic policy determination which is protected by the immunity rule.

Turner v. Township of Irvington

430 N.J. Super. 274 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 2013

Accordingly, we conclude that N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10(d) does not qualify or limit the general rule of public entity immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:2-10, and therefore the Township remains immune for the wanton and willful misconduct … As such, this provision qualifies the general declaration of immunity in Section 2-1(a).

Strube v. Travelers Indemn. Co.

277 N.J. Super. 236 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 4, 1994

Clearly, the Legislature *240 would not have made specific reference to those defunct organizations unless it intended the statutory immunity to extend to claims arising prior to June 29, 1993. … The statute, however, does not expressly establish a sanction to be applied to the insurer that does not comply with the notification requirement. Unavailability of the immunity might be one such sanction.

Horn v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.

260 N.J. Super. 165 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 10, 1992

The court in Carollo "conclude[d] therefore that the [arrest authorization of the] statute does not afford qualified immunity from a malicious prosecution action instituted by the merchant." 251 N.J. … Any person purposely concealing unpurchased merchandise of any store or other retail mercantile establishment, either on the premises or outside the premises of such store or other retail mercantile establishment, shall be

MAIN STREET AT WOOLWICH, LLC VS. AMMONS SUPERMARKET, INC.(L-1477-14, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

451 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 25, 2017

The lawsuit, the Court finds, to qualify as a sham must be objectively baseless. The Court is not to consider the underlying motivation. … Plaintiffs argue the motion judge's dismissal of their tortious interference claim is clearly erroneous.

MACALUSO EX REL. MACALUSO v. Knowles

341 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 5, 2001

"Thus, in California, once the court concludes that there is no special relationship establishing a duty of care, the issue of statutory immunity need not be reached." Ibid. … Campbell, 294 N.J.Super. 18, 25 , 682 A. 2d 272 (Law Div.1996), is clearly erroneous and should be disregarded.

In Re Carroll

339 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 24, 2001

POINT II: THE DECISION BELOW IS CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED LAW IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, WHICH HOLDS THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS GRANTED USE IMMUNITY AND IS THEN WARNED OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DECLINING TO ANSWER … have been clearly advised of his use immunity at the outset as a prerequisite to the subsequent imposition of a disciplinary sanction for refusal to make a statement.

Longo v. Santoro

195 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 1984

This is a qualified grant of immunity dependent upon whether the employee's determination can be viewed as "palpably unreasonable." Brown v. … Applicability of subsection d, namely, the State's exercise of discretion with respect to when it would proceed, does not per se establish immunity, for immunity is not available if `a court concludes that the determination

Molnar v. Star-Ledger

193 N.J. Super. 12 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 1984

The qualified privilege conferred upon Minerbrook has been defined in Coleman v. … Super. 214, 220 (App.Div. 1975) we noted that: We have long recognized the existence of a qualified privilege that confers immunity upon a public official for defamation uttered in relation to matters committed by law to

Katz v. Rahway Hosp.

214 N.J. Super. 379 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 19, 1986

The hospital also contends that it was unduly prejudiced by the trial judge's refusal to exclude the testimony of Gerald O'Rourke, who testified as an expert in security, because he was not qualified as an expert on hospital … Tp. of North Bergen, 77 N.J. 538, 559 (1978), and the intent to change the common law must be clearly and plainly expressed because an intent to alter the common law rule further than clearly expressed is not to be implied

Murray v. Shimalla

231 N.J. Super. 103 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1989

[Id. at 546.] *110 Even if defendant thereby qualifies for the immunity, however, he would still be liable if his conduct may fairly be characterized as bearing on his supervision of plaintiff and his conduct is found to … In view of plaintiff’s burden to establish that defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton, plaintiff should be permitted to take defendant’s deposition before trial.

Lathers v. Township of West Windsor

308 N.J. Super. 301 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 23, 1998

. *304 Prior to the Tort Claims Act, however, our courts recognized a common law immunity stemming from negligence in the removal of snow from public property. The common law immunity was established in Miehl v. … Because there was no landlord-tenant relationship established in Rossi , immunity applied. That rationale applies more forcefully under the facts of this case.

Ellison v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF SOUTH AMBOY

162 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 28, 1978

See N.J.S.A. 59:4-2, expressly declaring the liability of a public entity for * * * injury caused by a condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the … But if that is what it ultimately relies on, then clearly plaintiffs must have the opportunity at trial to test the accuracy and credibility of such testimonial recollection.

Smith v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP.

247 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 1, 1991

We do not, however, address whether the elements of a prima facie case were established because we are persuaded that immunity under the Act prevails over plaintiffs' claims in any event. … or the sign immunity, both of which give the State immunity.

IFA Ins. Co. v. New Jersey Dept. of Ins.

195 N.J. Super. 200 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 20, 1984

We will not substitute our judgment for the considered opinion of representatives of the Executive Branch who are qualified by training and expertise to make this judgment. … Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U.S. 207 , 79 S.Ct. 705 , 3 L.Ed. 2d 741 (1959), and, in any event, if the Association's conduct could be characterized as an unlawful group boycott, it would be immune under the state-action immunity

Acevedo v. Essex County

207 N.J. Super. 579 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 21, 1985

Plaintiff has failed to establish the elements for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The law concerning recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress is clearly set forth in Portee v. … THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE IMMUNITY BECAUSE AN INCORRECT AUTOPSY REPORT IS A MISREPRESENTATION UNDER N.J.S.A. 59:3-10, FOR WHICH THERE IS IMMUNITY. THIS IMMUNITY FOLLOWS TO THE COUNTY.