Case law

SP v. Collier High School

319 N.J. Super. 452 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 11, 1999

Collier Services "qualifies as a non-profit entity organized exclusively for charitable, religious or educational purposes for tax exemption status and files IRS Form 990." … She argues that "Bock is not entitled to charitable immunity in that he is an individual."

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.

NJ ED. FACIL. v. Conditioning Co.

237 N.J. Super. 310 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 13, 1989

Clearly, the Authority is an instrumental part of state government and, as such, is entitled to the benefit of the nullum tempus doctrine. The College was established by the State in 1929. T. … Fyfe, Inc., supra, relied upon by the trial court is clearly distinguishable and does not support a contrary result.

Rudnick v. Bentler

66 N.J. Super. 224 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 22, 1961

Plaintiff must establish herself as a "qualified person" as a condition precedent to the effective giving of *228 notice of intention to file a claim, N.J.S.A. 39:6-65, and to the actual application for payment of judgment … Justifiable sympathy for the remediless victim of another's recklessness must here yield to the clearly stated policy. Affirmed.

Wall v. Hudson County Park Commission

80 N.J. Super. 372 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1963

No reported case appears to have passed upon the question of the applicability of the statute to park commissions established under the County Park Act. … Had it intended to do so, it would *379 have clearly so stated, especially where, as here, it was promulgating an "explicit legislative declaration of public policy." Schwartz v. Stockton, supra, 32 N.J., at p. 148 .

Bona v. Wynn

311 N.J. Super. 257 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 18, 1997

The New Jersey Tort Claims Act was created to “establish immunities for municipalities; it was not designed to create liability.” Russo Farms v. … The general establishment of immunity clearly extends to public employees. See N.J.SA 59:3-1(b).

Hudson Environmental v. NJ PLIGA

372 N.J. Super. 284 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 30, 2004

The New Jersey Legislature's failure to qualify PLIGA's immunity conceivably reflects the Legislature's intent to create a broad, unlimited immunity. … PLIGA agreed in its motion papers that PLIGA was not immune from a declaratory judgment action to establish coverage in the face of PLIGA's denial of coverage.

Burroughs v. City of Atlantic City

234 N.J. Super. 208 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1989

Although no prior case is clearly dispositive of this one, a review of some prior decisions provides guidance. In Speaks v. Jersey City Housing Auth., 193 N.J. … The general approach is one of immunity "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by this act...." N.J.S.A. 59:2-1a.

State v. Ernst

110 N.J. Super. 520 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 1970

The Authority is authorized "to establish rules and regulations for the use of any project." N.J.S.A. 27:12C-11(i). … This court finds that such evidence is insufficient to clearly demonstrate an adequate connecting relationship between the banning of motorcycles and the public safety.

Calhanas v. South Amboy Roller Rink

292 N.J. Super. 513 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 24, 1996

There are no reported cases in either jurisdiction suggesting what type of contact so qualifies. … Reading the Act otherwise would effectively immunize an operator from liability for injuries resulting from guard negligence once it has placed any guards on the floor.

State v. Gora

148 N.J. Super. 582 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 24, 1977

B Defendant argues that the State failed to establish that Oliveri's tape recorder was capable of taping the conversations, that the recordings were authentic and correct, and that no changes, additions or deletions had been … The trial judge, in effect, held that the immunity granted by this statute was not self-executing. We disagree. In State v.

Hoddeson v. Koos Bros.

47 N.J. Super. 224 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1957

Does it clearly and unequivocally appear that the action of the trial judge constituted a manifest denial of justice under the law? Hartpence v. Grouleff, 15 N.J. 545, 549 (1954). … of the defendant in the manner described by the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, would the defendant be immune as a matter of law from liability for the plaintiffs' loss?

Gore v. Hepworth

316 N.J. Super. 234 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 30, 1998

under the plan or design immunity provision of the Tort Claims Act. … It is not disputed that the work being done by plaintiff was for Trucking and that Trucking clearly controlled plaintiff on the job.

Mancuso v. Klose

322 N.J. Super. 289 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 28, 1999

The 1991 amendments to the Act are clearly designed to focus the inquiry on the dominant character of the land and to account for the evolving types of activities considered recreational pursuits. … The establishment of these facts does not change the underlying conclusion that reasonable minds could differ as to whether Timothy appreciated the risk.

A-2404-24/a-0338-25 – Jessica Garcia v. Union City Board of Education

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 17, 2025

are based on qualifying misconduct, those claims are not barred by immunity from civil liability under the TCA. … A-2404-24 20 employment, it would have clearly said so.

Vacirca v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

192 N.J. Super. 412 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 7, 1983

they are clearly employees of the railroad which pays their salaries and can fire them at will. … The immunity granted by that section applies to all phases of the licensing function. Malloy v. State, 76 N.J. 515, 520 (1978).

Shabazz v. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

385 N.J. Super. 117 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 2006

Shabazz was informed again of his use immunity rights. Shabazz requested a counsel substitute and one was provided. … To qualify for admission to a RCRAP, the inmate must be classified by the ICC *478 as "full minimum". N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4 (a)(1).

JUSTIN WILD VS. CARRIAGE FUNERAL HOLDINGS, INC. (L-0687-17, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 27, 2019

It also shields qualifying users from civil penalties and other administrative actions. N.J.S.A. 24:6I-6(b). … If a plaintiff establishes this prima facie case, "a presumption arises that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff."

J.P. v. Gregory J. Smith

444 N.J. Super. 507 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 7, 2016

Hatchard, clearly establishes that by July 2013, plaintiff 4 See R. 4:46-2(c); Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540. 5 See Ji v. Palmer, 333 N.J. Super. 451, 463-64 (App. … Claims against the School are governed by the TCA, which "defines the extent of the Legislature's waiver of sovereign immunity and establishes the procedures by which claims may be brought[.]"

Feggans v. Billington

291 N.J. Super. 382 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 18, 1996

Proof of abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by the high evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. Williams v. Bell Tel. Labs. Inc., supra, 132 N.J. at 121 , 623 A. 2d 234 ; Erickson v. … , plaintiff argues that certain facts set forth in her certification, when viewed in a light most favorable to her, "clearly and convincingly establish a genuine dispute as to whether these defendants' signing the defamatory