Case law

Brien v. Lomazow

227 N.J. Super. 288 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1988

That protection, in effect, is the very same qualified immunity which, under N.J.S.A. 2A:47A-1, subjects a complainant to civil liability for complaints which are false, malicious and without probable cause. … As plaintiff has failed to establish a successful malicious prosecution action and that claim was properly dismissed, we conclude that defendant is entitled to the immunity embodied in N.J.S.A. 45:9-19.1.

Farias v. Township of Westfield

297 N.J. Super. 395 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 13, 1997

The burden of proof for establishing immunity lies with the public entity. Bligen v. Jersey City Hous. Auth., 131 N.J. 124, 128 , 619 A.2d 575 (1993). … In any event, the statutory weather immunity provided by N.J.S.A 59:4-7 would clearly apply, and therefore, the issue of liability under N.J.S.A 59:4-2 does not arise.

Valentino v. Valentino

309 N.J. Super. 334 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 30, 1998

The burden of establishing immunity rests upon the spouse asserting such immunity. Pascale v. Pascale, 140 N.J. 583, 609 , 660 A.2d 485 (1995); Painter v. … We decide whether the trial judge mistakenly exercised its broad authority to divide the parties’ property and whether the result was “reached by the trial judge on the evidence, or whether it is clearly unfair or unjustly

Bosch v. Hain

184 N.J. Super. 204 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 11, 1982

Thus, although N.J.S.A. 59:2-2 appears to establish sweeping vicarious liability for the acts of public employees, such general liability is, of course, subject to and circumscribed by the express immunity provisions of the … There is no indication in either of these sections that immunity applies only to discretionary acts. The language of N.J.S.A. 59:2-6 expressly provides two clearly stated exceptions to the immunity granted.

Leibig v. SOMERVILLE SENIOR HOUSING

326 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1999

To establish immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-6, it is also necessary to show that the design feature in question was contained in the construction plans, those plans were approved by the public entity, and the construction was … If all other elements of plan-or-design immunity had been present, would defendant have qualified for derivative immunity as a public contractor?

Fritz v. Anderson

148 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 9, 1977

The viability of defendant's counterclaim depends on the ability of the court to extend the abrogation of the parent-child immunity doctrine, beyond the limits established by the Supreme Court in France v. A.P.A. … In view of what has been stated above, this court is constrained to classify these allegations as falling clearly within the realm of the exercise of parental authority and discretion, and hence, held by our Supreme Court

Patricia Bullock-Pierce v. Cabria Davis

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 2, 2025

Notwithstanding DeShaney and its exceptions, the sergeant asserts she is entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claims because the record does not clearly establish her failure to arrest the boyfriend would be … Finally, qualified immunity is a doctrine which shields government officials from civil liability when "their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Nielsen v. Lee

355 N.J. Super. 373 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 3, 2002

The sole issue before us is whether at the time of the accident Metuchen's establishment of a statutory shade tree commission afforded absolute immunity from liability for sidewalk defects caused by a tree to the abutting … Clearly, had this sidewalk accident occurred on or after December 5, 1996, rather than two months earlier, there would be no doubt as to the duty and liability of the commercial abutting owners.

Matter of Fiorillo Bros. of NJ

242 N.J. Super. 667 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1990

Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 , 100 S.Ct. 937 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 233 (1980), the Supreme Court announced the following test for immunity under the Sherman Act: These decisions establish two standards for antitrust immunity … However, the Legislature simultaneously recognized the need to regulate the industry, clearly intending to establish a comprehensive regulatory structure. N.J.S.A. 13:1E-2.

Tp. of Washington v. CENT. BERGEN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.

156 N.J. Super. 388 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 4, 1978

The claim of immunity by Central from the zoning ordinance. The contention of defendants that Central is immune from the provisions of the zoning ordinance is without merit. … Laurel characteristics, which Washington Township so clearly is here. Segal Constr. Co. v. Wenonah Bd. of Adj., 134 N.J. Super. 421 (App. Div. 1975).

Neshaminy Constructors, Inc. v. Krause

181 N.J. Super. 376 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1981

The clause has been construed by the United States Supreme Court as establishing "a norm of comity," Austin v. … Following the standards established in Toomer, the Supreme Court has recently handed down a decision, Hicklin v.

Ball v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.

207 N.J. Super. 100 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1986

Extension of governmental tort liability in the manner urged by plaintiff here would clearly subvert the plainly expressed legislative mandate which is to immunize public bodies except where there is a statutory declaration … A fair reading of the license immunity section compels the conclusion that a critical fact which the State must establish in order to carry this burden is that it had either granted or denied a permit.

Guarini v. State of New York

215 N.J. Super. 426 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1986

The purpose of the New Jersey statute is to "re-establish" sovereign immunity. English v. Newark Housing Authority, 138 N.J. Super. 425, 428 (App.Div. 1976). See Glen v. … That process is clearly preferable to litigation. *441 As the United States Supreme Court said in Texas v.

FERIOZZI v. City of Atlantic City

268 N.J. Super. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 15, 1993

Plaintiff clearly qualifies as a prevailing party. The next issue is whether plaintiff should be entitled to damages. … This principle was clearly set forth in Commercial Clean. Corp. v.

Reynolds v. Lancaster County Prison

325 N.J. Super. 298 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 27, 1999

LCP'S IMMUNITY CLAIMS Relying on the principles of comity and choice-of-law, LCP demands full immunity under the PSTCA or, at least, a reduction of plaintiffs' damage claims to the limits of liability established by the PSTCA … any established limits on liability.

Rutgers v. Piluso

113 N.J. Super. 65 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 1971

That result would be contrary to the expressed intent to establish Rutgers as the State's instrumentality to operate the State University. In Aviation Services v. … Supporting the presumption of immunity are the provisions of the 1956 act.

Evans v. Elizabeth Police Dept.

190 N.J. Super. 633 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1983

In particular, the liability of a public employee for injuries caused by his actions is established in N.J.S.A. 59:3-1(a). But this liability is subject to any immunity provided by law, N.J.S.A. 59:3-1(b). … It is unnecessary to determine whether the action of a police officer in negligently making an arrest is a ministerial function or an immunized discretionary activity under N.J.S.A. 59:3-2 as the situation is clearly covered

Wood v. City of Linden

218 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 26, 1987

We now reverse because plaintiff established a prima facie case. … Clearly, no evidence was presented to allow the jury to deliberate as to them.

Hopkins v. City of Gloucester

358 N.J. Super. 271 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2003

possible negligence—it would not establish a showing by plaintiff of knowledge by Mr. … Johnson, he and his employer are immune from suit." *442 We do not agree.

Amantia v. Cantwell

89 N.J. Super. 7 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 9, 1965

The legislative history of these statutes, in our judgment, clearly and conclusively establishes that technicians, such as the petitioners, are covered by their provisions. … Scott, 11 N.J. 231 (1953), reaffirmed the long-established principle that the State of New Jersey, its agencies and authorized officials when acting in their official capacities are immune from suit unless there is specific