Case law

Greenberg v. Pryszlak

426 N.J. Super. 591 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 2012

immunity. … We need not discuss the parties’ arguments regarding the qualified immunity defense because, for the same reasons discussed with regard to the other issues, the State defendants’ claim of qualified immunity is fraught with

Long Branch Division of United Civic & Taxpayers Organization v. Cowan

119 N.J. Super. 306 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 30, 1972

Involved in this declaratory judgment action is the right of the State of New Jersey, through the State *308 Department of Health, Division of Narcotic and Drug Abuse Control (Department), to establish a residential narcotic … Although the complaint does not specifically charge that the Department acted unreasonably or arbitrarily, the above-quoted language clearly implies such conduct and sets forth a colorable claim thereof.

Barr v. Barr

418 N.J. Super. 18 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 19, 2011

See Pacifico, supra, 190 N.J. at 269 , 920 A. 2d 73 (reiterating that "the burden of establishing immunity from distribution of a particular marital asset or portion of an asset rests upon the spouse who asserts it"). *888 … The regular increases attributable solely to longevity are not immune when a distribution is deferred.

Benton v. YMCA of Westfield

47 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1957

It is not sufficient, as defendant argues, merely to establish that the conditions present on the steps were observed by Mrs. Benton. … The doctrine of charitable immunity found its way into American law through misconception or misapplication of previously established principles.

Ruberton v. Gabage

280 N.J. Super. 125 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 1995

First, an attorney's violation of an ethics rule does not in itself establish a cause of action in tort. Petrillo v. Bachenberg, 263 N.J. … Super. at 392 , 652 A. 2d 1245 (initial complaint to law enforcement officials about alleged crime committed by plaintiff protected by qualified, not absolute, privilege).

Sanchez v. Department of Human Services

314 N.J. Super. 11 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 1998

It has been variously assigned to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. TV, to the Commerce Clause, and to the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. … qualified bona fide residents.

Ludlow v. City of Clifton

305 N.J. Super. 308 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 19, 1997

psychological problems, including homicidal tendencies, which made her a danger to the safety and well-being of others, and consequently defendants were “palpably unreason *310 able” in failing to place her “in an institution established … Thus, the Legislature clearly intended the immunity provided by N.J.S.A 59:6-6 to apply to any decision relating to confinement for mental illness, regardless of whether that confinement is in a facility specifically described

Santos v. Figueroa

87 N.J. Super. 227 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 1965

The court adopts the guiding principle that the matter of justice to the nonresident should be handled in accordance with established principles of forum non conveniens. Id., at p. 286. … for the first time on this appeal, and we should clearly not, in his default of brief and appearance and on our own motion, raise the point on his behalf.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro

271 N.J. Super. 425 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 1992

The Corporation is immune from taxes other than ad valorem real property taxes. … Just as clearly, however, the statutory fee allowed to the sheriff is not a direct tax on anyone’s capital, including that of the RTC.

Fischer v. Canario

277 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 21, 1994

Rubin was qualified as an expert in the fields of oncology, hematology, immunology, and general medicine. Dr. Roschelle was an orthopedic surgeon. … The jury charge in this case, when read as a whole, clearly instructs the jury to award plaintiff the entire amount of the damages to which he is entitled.

Lascurain v. City of Newark

349 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 2002

The court stated: "But clearly, these individuals, both either under an absolute immunity or discretionary immunity, *752 should have their cases dismissed against them." … Thus, the test is whether a public employee reasonably believed that his or her actions were lawful in light of clearly established laws. Delbridge v.

Robson v. Rodriquez

44 N.J. Super. 262 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 1957

Necessary proofs covering the above facts have been established and filed with the court. … It clearly states that a Fund is established and that only `certain' persons are to be paid out of it for injuries or death and that it is to be resorted to for property damage only in `certain cases.' *270 If the incidental

State v. Zwillman

112 N.J. Super. 6 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 19, 1970

Here the defendant was not allowed to go into the specific circumstances under which the immunity was based or the nature of arrangements made for immunity. … A trial judge may intervene in the trial during the introduction of evidence to qualify or expedite matters.

Van Engelen v. O'LEARY

323 N.J. Super. 141 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 13, 1999

Clearly a major problem in Sussex Borough is an inordinate use of alcohol and drugs. This must end now! … Plaintiffs do not clearly articulate their theory as to what O'Leary intended to accomplish by his asserted pillorying of Curcio and Van Engelen.

National State Bank v. Gonzalez

266 N.J. Super. 614 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1993

Section 702 is clearly not, however, a waiver of immunity in state court. See Kozera v. Spirito, 723 F. 2d 1003 , 1011 n. 7 (1st Cir.1983); Aminoil U.S.A., Inc. v. … The legislative history of Section 702 clearly demonstrates Congress' intent that Section 702 not operate as a waiver of immunity in state court. See H.R.Rep.

Scavone v. Scavone

230 N.J. Super. 482 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 9, 1988

Passive, Immune Asset (Pre-marital, Gift, Inheritance) in One Name. … The immunity of assets acquired in such a manner is stated very clearly in N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and its accompanying statements.

Friedland v. Podhoretz

174 N.J. Super. 73 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 23, 1980

For example, the court has established a statewide disciplinary review board composed of both attorneys and nonattorneys. … The Ramstead court said that "we think that the legislature, in clearly separating the other classes given an *87 unqualified immunity from those who file a complaint alleging misconduct, evinced the intention to limit the

Weiss v. Weiss

226 N.J. Super. 281 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 1988

Defendant and his mother had the house appraised and established an $18,000 purchase price based on that appraisal. … Since the burden of establishing the immunity of an asset from equitable distribution rests with the party asserting the immunity, Painter v.

Finderne Management Co. v. Barrett

355 N.J. Super. 197 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 20, 2002

Comm'r. of Internal Revenue, 108 T.C. 524 , 1997 WL 328581 (1997), concluded that plans similar to the EPIC Plan did not qualify for favorable *860 tax treatment. … Financial's third-party complaint and Barrett's claim for contribution and indemnification on the grounds that Rossi is immune from suit based on the statutory accountant's immunity established in N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-25.

Berkery v. Kinney

397 N.J. Super. 222 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 18, 2007

It's so tough that clearly and convincingly is the standard [rather than] a preponderance of the evidence." In New York Times v. … Considering plaintiff's admissions with respect to his prior criminal convictions and the public records regarding his prior criminal involvement, plaintiff clearly qualifies as a limited-purpose public figure who must prove