Case law

United States v. Failla

120 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 1954

This remedy is clearly preserved by the provisions of Section 3806 of the Code, supra. … It is well established that sovereign immunity extends not only to original claims but also to counterclaims which demand the entry of an affirmative judgment against the sovereign.

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

FERRER v. VON PIER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2019

First, to overcome qualified immunity defense, the “clearly established right must be the federal right on which the claim for relief is based.” Doe v. … No. 49 of the “clearly established right” is too broad for purposes of qualified immunity analysis. See Mammaro v.

State v. Marshall

123 N.J. 1 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 24, 1991

The basic rule was established in Brady v. … However, during the State’s cross-examination of defendant, Marshall was pressed to admit that his wife had asked, “What’s this for,” in the presence of the agent, the State’s purpose clearly being to establish a lack of

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.

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 .

800-JR Cigar, Inc. v. GoTo. Com, Inc.

437 F. Supp. 2d 273 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 13, 2006

JR Cigar counters that the Communications Decency Act immunity may not cover GoTo since it may not qualify as an “interactive computer service.” PI. Rply. Mem. in Opp. at 27. … The Court is not persuaded that GoTo qualifies for immunity under the Act.

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.

SABBAGH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 28, 2025

Qualified immunity provides “immunity from suit” and absolves government officials of the obligation to stand trial so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Accordingly, unless the face of the complaint establishes whether a right was “clearly established or not,” a “district court must deny the motion to dismiss and seek to resolve qualified immunity at summary judgment.”

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.

HARLEY v. CITY OF WOODBURY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 18, 2020

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the … at issue was “clearly established” at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct.

In Re Burkhardt

220 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 1998

Because discharging a debt would clearly have such an impact, appellant’s argument must fail.” Id. (emphasis added). … In relevant part, the Court interpreted the application of the Eleventh Amendment as follows: This court’s decisions thus establish that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens

Mobley v. City of Atlantic City Police Department

89 F. Supp. 2d 533 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 24, 1999

immunity because the courts “had not yet ‘clearly established’ the proper response required under the constitution” to a sexual harassment claim. … Mobley has not identified any “clearly established” constitutional right that Loen is alleged to have violated.

McFadden v. Whitney

51 N.J.L. 391 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 15, 1889

This distinction is clearly recognized in this court in the case of Bitz v. Meyer, 11 Vroom 252. … The policy of the law has always been to guarantee immunity to suitors who, in good faith, adopt and pursue the due forms of the law, although they may ultimately fail to establish their claims.

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.

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.

ARIAS v. CITY OF TRENTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 30, 2022

For efficiency, a court may elect to consider the ‘clearly established’ prong first because, if that prong is not satisfied, then qualified immunity applies.” Muth v. Woodring, 666 F. … of qualified immunity.”)

MORTILLARO v. MARULANDA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 10, 2025

An officer conducting a search or seizure is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. See Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641. … Because the evidence cannot show that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, qualified immunity defeats Plaintiff’s § 1983 and NJCRA claims.

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