Case law

A & B AUTO STORES v. City of Newark

106 N.J. Super. 491 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 25, 1969

regard to the effect of the statute and the immunity law existing at the time of its adoption. … In Amelchenko, supra, Justice Francis pointed out some of the reasons for the continuation of immunity in snow removal cases as follows: "Moreover, when a street department is established, obviously the governing body determines

Trautwein v. Harbourt

40 N.J. Super. 247 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 16, 1956

which can support but one of the kind, although he expects *267 and intends to ruin a deserving widow who is established there already. … The case seems to us clearly to have been one, in effect, of expulsion rather than exclusion. But the appellate court reversed a judgment for plaintiff.

K.D. v. Bozarth

313 N.J. Super. 561 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 1998

In so arguing, K.D. relies on the “contempt” references in the order to show cause and sentencing sheet, insisting that they conclusively establish that Judge Bozarth found K.D. guilty of a newly charged criminal offense … Whether that be labelled a contempt proceeding (as Judge Holston assumed for motion purposes), or instead a resentencing under the municipal-court statute (N.J.S.A. 2B:12-23), Judge Bozarth clearly had general subject matter

Burlington Assem. of God v. Zoning Bd.

238 N.J. Super. 634 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 25, 1989

Freedom of Religion. (1) Immunity. The board first argues that it has immunity from damage liability because it was acting judicially in deciding the variance issue. … Nor is the Township of Florence immune. Municipalities have no immunity in a suit for damages under the Civil Rights Act. Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 673 (1980).

Johnson v. Mountainside Hosp.

239 N.J. Super. 312 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 12, 1990

Plaintiff now alleges that the court's ruling which precluded him from asking the witness whether the by-law established the standard for the staff's practice of medicine was error. … This ruling was clearly correct. McComish v. DeSoi, 42 N.J. 274, 281 , 200 A. 2d 116 (1964); Ruth v. Fenchel, 21 N.J. 171, 176 , 121 A. 2d 373 (1956).

Evans-Aristocrat Industries, Inc. v. City of Newark

129 N.J. Super. 437 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 17, 1974

A. 32:1-161 to waive that agency’s sovereign immunity from suit. … Although the legislative history pertinent .to the waiver of the Port Authority’s immunity from suit is meager, the intended purpose in preserving immunity- from injunction suits unless sanctioned by the Attorney General

Ptaszynski v. Uwaneme

371 N.J. Super. 333 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 21, 2004

After the judge dismissed the jury, he granted the reserved Rule 4:40-1 motions for judgment by Olah and Ptaszynski, finding they were entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims. III. … They submit that because the individual police officers were not immunized from liability for intentional torts pursuant to N.J.S.A. 59:3-3 and -14, notice was not required.

Borough of Edgewater v. Connoil Corp.

4 N.J. Super. 338 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 1949

Thus the facts and circumstances in each case must clearly and convincingly establish the right to exemption within the statute granting exemption, otherwise the general rule is invoked which subjects `all property to a just … A careful study of all the proofs, and legitimate inferences properly deducible therefrom, satisfies us that defendant failed to carry the burden imposed upon it by law to clearly and convincingly establish it was entitled

Lieberman v. Port Authority

254 N.J. Super. 456 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 1992

The Court of Appeals held that the failure of the employees who saw the attack to summon aid was outside of the boundaries of the policy-based governmental immunity established in Weiner, supra, 448 N.Y.S.2d 141 , 433 N.E … established.

State v. Nolfi

141 N.J. Super. 528 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 8, 1976

IV, § 2, cl. 1 *534 (Privileges and Immunities). … Defendant clearly falls within that group of offenders at whom the PTI program is aimed.

Weiser v. County of Ocean

326 N.J. Super. 194 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 30, 1999

See Report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Sovereign Immunity (May, 1972). … 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

State v. North

197 N.J. Super. 349 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 8, 1984

His work culminated in three detailed drawings which clearly qualify as “plans.” … established such projects as off limits to engineers.

O'MALLEY v. Department of Energy

212 N.J. Super. 114 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 20, 1986

Clearly, the limitations engrafted upon provisional appointments evince an intent that they be utilized only as stop-gap measures so that the public business might not be interrupted pending the establishing of employment … we further direct the Department of Civil Service to proceed to conduct the necessary qualifying examination for the establishment of such list.

MORGAN DENNEHY VS. EAST WINDSOR REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-1333-17, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 27, 2021

, N.J.S.A. 59:4-64, discretionary immunity, N.J.S.A. 59:2-3(c), and immunity under N.J.S.A. 59:4-2. … Fillmyer is a public employee, and her duties, responsibilities, and immunities are clearly established in the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3.

Crespo v. McCartin

244 N.J. Super. 413 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 13, 1990

Evid.R. 19 establishes the test for determining whether a witness is qualified to render an expert opinion. … I concur in the result because the record clearly supports the determination that Dr.

J. J. Nugent Co. v. Sagner

151 N.J. Super. 189 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 24, 1977

Me agree with the trial judge’s conclusion in this regard and note that while sovereign immunity was still the general rule, some limitations thereon had already been established by legislation and judicial decree. … Clearly, the Department of Transportation falls within the definition of “State.”

Fattore v. POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIRE. SYST.

80 N.J. Super. 541 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 17, 1963

Later, he qualified his view to say that it was "possible," but not "probable" that there was causal relationship. … The comprehensive statutory scheme is clearly otherwise. The various sections of the statute must be read together.

Warren County Community College v. Warren County Board of Chosen Freeholders

350 N.J. Super. 489 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 14, 2002

The complaint filed by the College clearly did not indicate that Freeholders as individuals were personally the subjects of the contempt proceedings. … Under this definition the College might not qualify because it was not established by the Board as a college, but only as a county community college agency (NJ.S.A. 18A:64A-30), which is governed by a commission, see NJ.S.A

Expo, Inc. v. City of Passaic

149 N.J. Super. 416 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 6, 1977

Certainly the record clearly reveals that at plaintiff's establishment the law is habitually being violated. … Clearly, then, any attempts to monitor and limit the activities at the plaintiff establishment and permit the continuation of performances would for all practical purposes be futile.

Kimmelman v. HENKELS & MC COY, INC.

208 N.J. Super. 508 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1986

Although legislative history is sparse, it can be seen from the statutory scheme that subsection a is clearly limited to the Attorney General. … A reading of the complaint in this case clearly indicates it was not brought under N.J.S.A. 56:9-12. Nor was any relief granted thereunder.