Case law

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.

Zacarias v. Allstate Ins. Co.

330 N.J. Super. 231 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 20, 2000

Unless the abolition of interspousal immunity, Merenoff v. Merenoff, 76 N.J. 535 , 388 A. 2d 951 (1978), has rendered the exclusion of Mrs. … Zacarias from coverage contrary to the State's legislatively established public policy, we are bound by the pertinent ruling of the Supreme Court in Kampf v. Franklin Life Ins.

Mastice v. Interstate Industrial Corp.

270 N.J. Super. 350 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1994

Establishing tort liability is an inherently uncertain process. See Eger v. E.I. Du Pont DeNemours Co., supra, 110 N.J. at 143 , 539 A.2d 1213 . … Establishing damages in a wrongful death action of a minor is an equally uncertain process. See Simmel v. New Jersey Coop Co., 28 N.J. 1, 14 , 143 A.2d 521 (1958); Botta v.

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.

Karczewski v. Nowicki

188 N.J. Super. 355 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 24, 1982

N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, which establishes a notice requirement, is part of the Tort Claims Act which, according to N.J.S.A. 59:14-4, took effect on July 1, 1972. … The subject of the liability and immunity of public employees is the exclusive province of *361 N.J.S.A. 59:3-1 through N.J.S.A. 59:3-14.

Board of Education v. Eckert

361 N.J. Super. 238 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 17, 2003

immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.”), aff'd, 5 N.J. … Therefore despite the parties' dispute over the extent of disruption caused by the Board’s excavations, the soil sampling clearly would have been disruptive to the farming operation described by Habiak.

Christmas v. City of Newark

216 N.J. Super. 393 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 2, 1987

Dept., 55 N.J. 534 (1970) which all but eliminated sovereign immunity in actions brought against the State and other public entities. … Clearly, the Stewart court's holding unambiguously states that commercial property owners, not the municipality, owe a duty to pedestrians to maintain sidewalks which abut their property. See also Mirza v.

Ricciardi v. Weber

350 N.J. Super. 453 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 2, 2002

Once this qualified privilege has been established, the burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to overcome the privilege by demonstrating that the statements were published with actual malice, i.e., either with knowledge that … This means that a slander plaintiff may establish a cause of action not only without proving special damages but without proving any form of actual damage to reputation.

Pinkowski v. Township of Montclair

299 N.J. Super. 557 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 7, 1997

Thus, the Pinkowskis argue, the judge erred in according Montclair immunity. … In addition, “not every impairment of value establishes a taking.” Washington Market Enterprises v. Trenton, supra, 68 N.J. at 116 , 343 A.2d 408 .

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).

Mager v. United Hospitals of Newark

88 N.J. Super. 421 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 16, 1965

Reading it in its entirety we must conclude that it does not immunize Manufacturers from liability in the circumstances of this case. … Defendant's operation of such a clinic was clearly in its own interest.

Branch v. Dairy

459 N.J. Super. 529 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 19, 2019

After the parties exchanged some written discovery, on August 4, 2017, defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it was immunized from liability under the good-faith defense. … Because the good-faith defense provides a total bar on liability for violations of the WHL, it clearly operates as an exemption to the WHL's requirements.

CITY OF NEWARK v. Essex Cty. Bd. of Tax.

103 N.J. Super. 41 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1968

for a public use does not lose immunity because the agency incidentally derives some private business income from it." … "`Marine terminal purposes' shall mean the effectuation, establishment, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement, maintenance or operation of marine terminals."

McDonnell v. State of Ill.

319 N.J. Super. 324 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 15, 1999

The doctrine of sovereign immunity "supports the conclusion that no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent, but it affords no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign's courts." … "Generally speaking, to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must establish intentional and outrageous conduct by the defendant, proximate cause, and distress that is severe."

Componile v. Maybee

273 N.J. Super. 402 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 8, 1994

The court clearly stated that its decision applied only to the facts before it and should not be taken as applying to other situations, such as large parties at which the host is too busy to personally serve alcoholic beverages … [T]he commission recommends legislation that will clearly establish the circumstances under which a social host can be held liable for injuries and damages caused by a social guest to whom the host has provided alcoholic

ALLAN B. BRAGGIN v. BOROUGH OF RAMSEY (L-6101-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 6, 2022

The judge further addressed whether Mayor Dillon and Forbes were entitled to qualified immunity. … To determine if qualified immunity applies, we consider whether: (1) plaintiff's constitutional rights violated; and (2) "was the constitutional right being violated clearly established at the time so that any reasonable

Pascale v. Pascale

274 N.J. Super. 429 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 22, 1994

The burden of establishing such immunity as to any particular asset will rest upon the spouse who asserts it." [ Painter v. Painter, supra, 65 N.J. at 214 , 320 A. 2d 484 ; See also Landwehr v. … They were clearly united economically.

Eden v. Conrail

175 N.J. Super. 263 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 18, 1980

We believe the factual situation inherent in the railroad platform qualifies for application of the exceptional rule. … The Comparative Negligence Act cannot be construed as a legislative intent to repeal N.J.S.A. 48:12-152 because earlier case law interpreting the railroad immunity statute clearly establishes that it was not based upon the

Wall v. Hudson County Park Commission

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

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. … immunity, as a “body politic, with power to sue and be sued, use a common seal and adopt by-laws to regulate its proceedings” (R.

Guaman v. Velez

432 N.J. Super. 230 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 13, 2013

In 2005, the Legislature adopted The Family Health Care Coverage Act (FHCCA), N.J.S.A. 30:4J-8 to -19, which re-established, reformed, and expanded a prior program to provide subsidized health insurance coverage to qualifying … This heavy reliance on the program indicates how necessary and effective it is, and clearly demonstrates how substantially the restriction operates against the protected class.