Case law

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.

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.

Andrew v. Deshler

45 N.J.L. 167 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1883

There has been considerable discussion as to how far the publication of a notice of this character is a privileged communication, so as to repel the presumption of malice and afford a qualified defence to the action. … Wildes, 5 E. & B. 328, Lord Campbell says: “ We are of opinion that wherever there is evidence of malice, either extrinsic or intrinsic, in answer to the immunity claimed by reason of the occasion, a question arises which

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

Rickenbach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

635 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 22, 2009

established legal right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller, lessor, creditor, lender or bailee as established by State or Federal law at the time the offer is made or the consumer contract is signed or the warranty … Defendants have not presented argument as to whether the payoff statement violated a "clearly established legal right” of the McTagues and the Court will not, sua sponte, take up this issue now. 10 .

Martin v. Unknown U.S. Marshals

965 F. Supp. 2d 502 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 2013

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Qualified immunity protects reasonable mistakes. See Anderson v.

PINKSTON v. CITY OF JERSEY CITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 24, 2020

Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. … As such, the Defendant Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen v. Florio

744 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 15, 1990

Plaintiffs assert that the immunity provided by the voluntary surrender statute is inadequate because it would not immunize them from prosecution for manufacture, sale, disposal, shipment, or transport of large capacity magazines … Indeed, in § 927, the Congress clearly expressed its intent not to occupy the field of intrastate gun control regulation: No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress

DORVAL v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, TREASURY DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 25, 2021

Qualified immunity shields officials from liability unless they violated clearly established rights. Williams v. City of York, 967 F.3d 252, 258 (3d Cir. 2020) (§ 1983); Morillo v. … It was clearly established that Detective Furda could not rely on such statements.

United States v. Smith

580 F. Supp. 1418 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1984

Demonstrating that the evidence to be used at trial was “untainted” would not alone necessarily establish that the government did not use the immunized testimony in some of the more subtle and remote ways discussed above. … Accordingly, in addition to showing that the federal government’s evidence is derived from sources totally independent of the defendant’s immunized testimony, the government must demonstrate the steps it took to establish

DELSOLE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 27, 2026

Accordingly, the Supreme Court has explained that “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the … decline to resolve qualified immunity defenses at the pleadings stage.

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.

RUIZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 1, 2020

“The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” … In the absence of a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, this Court is required to grant qualified immunity to Defendants Hepner and Soltys on Plaintiff’s conspiracy

El Ameen Bey v. Stumpf

825 F. Supp. 2d 537 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 2011

However, Plaintiffs cannot litigate each other’s claims jus tertii: each Plaintiff must establish her oum standing to prosecute her mm claims. … Such claims of "diplomatic immunity” are without merit.

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.

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.

C.H. Ex Rel. Z.H. v. Oliva

990 F. Supp. 341 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 30, 1997

Under the present circumstances, both the Medford and the State defendants clearly acted under the col- or of state law. 2. … The immunity from suit also extends to "agencies or departments” of the state.