Case law

State v. Kenny

128 N.J. Super. 94 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 1974

The very purpose of this statute would be defeated by an interpretation which qualified the transactional immunity to those subject matters covered during direct examination. … Finally, the prosecutor urged the jury to: * * * go into that jury room and deliberate and come back out to the courtroom and clearly and loudly enough for them to hear you, loudly enough for them to hear you in even in Hudson

MARC RUSSI v. CITY OF NEWARK (L-5182-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 17, 2022

law immunity. … Plaintiff clearly used Union Valley Road for public access purposes, supporting the application of the LLA.

Sanner v. Ford Motor Co.

144 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 6, 1976

It is undisputed that the United States Government procured the production of these vehicles in conformity with its own engineering specifications and submitted these specifications to qualified prospective bidders. … This rule is the means by which the Secretary of Transportation is directed to establish motor vehicle safety standards. 15 U.S.C.A. 1381 et seq.

Fiduccia v. SUMMIT HILL CONST. CO., INC.

109 N.J. Super. 249 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 4, 1970

Clearly, there are areas in which governmental activities involve questions of discretion and judgment for which, in the absence of bad faith, corruption, oppressive conduct, or *253 other abuse of power, there is immunity … The line at which governmental activity becomes immune is not readily defined.

State v. Cantor

221 N.J. Super. 219 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 23, 1987

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-8 clearly interdicts the behavior alleged to have been exhibited by defendant. … Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1 (1979), it was clearly established that members of the press have some special newsgathering *224 rights which must be respected by government. Id. at 14 .

OASIS THERAPEUTIC LIFE CENTERS, INC. VS. PETER G. WADE (L-1287-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

457 N.J. Super. 218 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 10, 2018

In establishing its first TRAIL center, Oasis purchased a twenty-six-acre Monmouth County estate. … Div. 1998), by immunizing such actors from suit.

City of Newark v. JS

279 N.J. Super. 178 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 8, 1993

Congress intended the ADA to apply to communicable diseases when it provided that to be protected by the ADA a person must be "qualified" and defined "qualified" as one who does "not pose a direct threat to the health or … In addition, the least restrictive means should be used to achieve the clearly defined public health goal.

Pinckney v. City of Jersey City

140 N.J. Super. 96 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 30, 1976

The basic approach taken by the Legislature was to reestablish sovereign immunity [1] and at the same time grant waiver of that immunity under circumstances and in accordance with conditions set forth in the Act. [2] In establishing … It is a firmly established rule in American jurisprudence that acts in derogation of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed and that provisions which are conditions which the sovereign attaches to the waiver of immunity

KEMP BY WRIGHT v. State

286 N.J. Super. 549 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 17, 1996

As far as we can tell only one case in California has treated the issue, albeit in the context of whether an AIDS blood test conducted by a medical center employee qualifies as an "examination or diagnosis for the purpose … The law is, moreover, well established that "immunity is the dominant theme of the Act" and, accordingly, where immunity applies, no liability exists. E.g., Weiss v.

Tryanowski v. Lodi Bd. of Educ.

274 N.J. Super. 265 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 8, 1994

Dev., 55 N.J. 534 , 264 A. 2d 34 (1970), in which the Supreme Court abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity to tort claims, and thus the Act's purpose was to re-establish immunity for all public entities in New Jersey … Ventron, supra, is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

Diane Voynick v. Brian Voynick

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2025

An anti-Lepis clause [contractually] limits the factual situations qualifying as a change in circumstances sufficient to modify an alimony obligation. See Quinn v. … Defendant provided no evidence, expert or otherwise, delineating his immune and non-immune assets or the income stream from those non-immune assets.

Kleinke v. City of Ocean City

163 N.J. Super. 424 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 24, 1978

A. 59:4-1 et seq. is that plaintiff establish that the property upon which his injury occurred was in a “dangerous condition” at the time of the injury. … A. 59:4r-8 would not grant immunity.

Tice v. Cramer

254 N.J. Super. 641 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 16, 1992

In any case, the judge found there was "no suggestion by anyone that Patrolman Cramer either initiated pursuit or continued it in bad faith." *646 The Law Division judge concluded that N.J.S.A. 59:5-2(b) established immunity … While the wording of Roll generally does speak in terms of the absence of any tort duty in the circumstance, the policy of immunity for this type of police conduct was clearly the thrust of the opinion.

Neigel v. Seaboard Finance Co.

68 N.J. Super. 542 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 14, 1961

Privilege may be absolute or qualified. … We hold that the letter mailed to plaintiff's employer by the defendants does not, in itself, establish a qualified privilege. *552 II.

In re Wheeler

433 N.J. Super. 560 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 30, 2013

Pursuant to N.J.S.A 2C:58-4d, a *580 carry permit may be tailored to the need established by the applicant. … Privileges and Immunities The applicants also contend that subsection l of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6 violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.

Dunn v. County of Morris

298 N.J. Super. 212 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 28, 1997

Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 170 N.J.Super. 153 , 406 A.2d 170 (App.Div.1979), where the issue was whether a county park commission police officer’s prior service qualified as county employment service. … The judge continued: But nevertheless, the statutes clearly indicate ... there’s some functioning that the Park Commission has that establishes it as something different than some of the other agencies of the County, but

JOHN TIMMINS, ETC. VS. ROBERT B. BOYLE (L-1092-18, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 3, 2021

clearly established. … "Thus, '[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.'" Ibid.

Franco v. Davis

112 N.J. Super. 496 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 9, 1970

Transport Corp., 56 N.J. 500 (1970), which abolished the doctrine of child-parent immunity. … The latter case, however, clearly presented a change of factual situation in a child support case and did not contemplate a change in decisional law.

State v. Irizarry

271 N.J. Super. 577 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 1, 1994

The prosecution has the burden of establishing that its evidence is not tainted by information derived from immunized testimony. … The affidavits of record indicate that defendant was told before he was granted immunity that he would not be given any consideration (except for the establishment of a possible mitigating factor) in exchange for his testimony

Hauser v. YMCA

91 N.J. Super. 172 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 21, 1966

The use to be administered is public and charitable, but the organization and management are private." *176 Clearly, this pronouncement by our Supreme Court makes it conclusive that defendant comes within the purview of the … It is significant that in so deciding the court found no problem resulting from the fact that plaintiff was temporarily residing in the defendant's establishment, or that she was making payment for such *178 residency.