Case law

WINFIELD SCOTT TOWER URBAN RENEWAL LP v. LUCIANI

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 2024

Qualified immunity shields public officials from civil damages liability as long “as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Importantly, “qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Thomas v. Indep. Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 291 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Leveto v.

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.

State v. Fass

36 N.J. 102 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 6, 1961

of religion" or as establishing or tending to establish "one religious sect in preference to another." … Clearly the conduct of defendant's business as described above would have rendered the immunity inapplicable prior to 1959.

STILE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 2020

right, and that the right was ‘clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’” … Defendants submit they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id.)

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.

Wilentz v. Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures

118 N.J.L. 20 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 13, 1937

The Morris Canal and Banking Corporation, in which the Society filed a bill for the purpose of establishing its right to all the waters of the Passaic river, at Paterson, and to restrain defendant, &c., from in anywise diverting … True it is that in each of the cited eases the grounds here urged were raised collaterally only, but a careful reading of the opinion in each case clearly demonstrates that the attack on the Society’s right to prevent water

Camden County Recovery Coalition v. Camden City Board of Education for the Public School System

262 F. Supp. 2d 446 · District Court, D. New Jersey · May 16, 2003

The burden of proving that Eleventh Amendment immunity applies is put on the party attempting to assert such immunity. Christy v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Comm’n., 54 F.3d 1140 , 1144 (3d Cir. 1995). … P. 12(b)(6), had the Defendants not qualified for Eleventh Amendment immunity.

In Re Petition to Compel Testimony of Tuso

73 N.J. 575 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 30, 1977

Yet clearly any such interaction would have violated Tuso's privilege. … But while federal precedents indicate that a court has no discretion to determine whether a grant of immunity would be in the public interest, they also establish that courts have ample authority to check prosecutorial abuses

LEE v. CLARK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two- prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time … In Gibson, the Court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity because an officer’s affirmative duty to disclose information was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs conviction

KELLEY v. REYES

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2025

The qualified immunity analysis is a two- prong inquiry: “(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff show the violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether the law was clearly established at the time … In Gibson, the Court found that the troopers were entitled to qualified immunity because an officer’s affirmative duty to disclose information was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiffs conviction

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.

State v. Bieniek

200 N.J. 601 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 21, 2010

The memorandum set forth four mitigating circumstances: (2) [Defendant] did not contemplate that his conduct would cause or threaten serious harm; (4) [Defendant] suiters from severe alcoholism, which fails to establish a … Because the sentencing court adhered to the sentencing principles set forth in the Code and defined in our case law, its discretion should be immune from second-guessing.

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

Popow v. City of Margate

476 F. Supp. 1237 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 1979

A state legislature could always refuse to waive its sovereign immunity, revoke a previous waiver, or grant a limited right of action subject to statutory immunities. … For example, under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq., there is immunity for public employees’ discretionary acts. N.J.S.A. 59:3-2.

ZISA v. HAVILAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 17, 2019

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, this Court concluded that Haviland did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, and that he is therefore entitled to qualified immunity for the allegations that relate to his instructions to

Weiss v. Goldfarb

154 N.J. 468 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 16, 1998

More recently, even in the trial of verbal threshold cases before a jury to determine whether a plaintiffs alleged injuries qualify under that statute, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8a, our courts have held that it is improper to mention … As part of its 1995 tort reform, L.1995, c. 142, § 9, the Legislature directed that “[t]he jury shall not be informed of the cap on punitive damages established by section 6 of this act.” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.16.

DORSEY v. BURNS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 28, 2024

Qualified Immunity The Individual Defendants alternatively argue they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Bivens claims. (Id. at 23-33.) … “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

BAKER v. BOROUGH OF TINTON FALLS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 4, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established

Campbell Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (In Re Campbell Enterprises, Inc.)

66 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 4, 1986

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157, which sections were created by the Act, this court clearly retains subject matter jurisdiction over the instant proceeding. … The Regan court established that the plaintiff before it lacked an alternative means to challenge the injunction proceeding, and thus the court did not apply the two-part test established in Enochs .

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.