Case law

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

CORDERO v. MARTIN

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 29, 2025

DISCUSSION Defendant argues that: (1) she is entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that “two isolated incidents” in which Defendant allegedly opened Plaintiffs legal mail … Harlow, 457 U.S, at 818-19, For qualified-immunity purposes, “clearly established rights are derived cither from binding Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent or from a ‘robust consensus of cases of

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?

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.

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).

State v. Collingswood Sewerage Co.

85 N.J.L. 567 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 22, 1914

Justice Parker, in speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, very clearly enunciates the rule, as follows: “As the law now stands, whether a case comes before us on strict bill of exceptions or under the statute, or both … building and location of its plant and has in every respect complied with all the requirements of the state sewage commission and the state board of health in the construction and operation of its plant, that therefore it is immune

Arista Records, Inc. v. Flea World, Inc.

356 F. Supp. 2d 411 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 27, 2005

Columbus Farmers Market argues that this defense was improperly struck, because it seeks not to establish the “negligence of third parties” nor a claim for contribution, but rather to establish that any damage to Plaintiffs … Thus, case law is clear that, in order to overcome this qualified privilege, Defendants must plead malice.

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.

NOEMI ESCOBAR VS. DAVID A. MAZIE (L-8329-17, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 8, 2019

While the appeal was pending in this court, the State, which had argued qualified immunity in the trial court, made efforts to settle the case. … After plaintiff rejected all of the State's settlement offers, we reversed the judgment, finding the State employees entitled to qualified immunity, N.J.S.A. 59:3-3. N.E. 449 N.J. Super. at 408.

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[.]"

LUNA-DIAZ v. HACKENSACK POLICE DEPARTMENT

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

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … And the second qualified immunity question is whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.” L.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 836 F.3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2016) (cleaned up).

Christy v. City of Newark

102 N.J. 598 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 11, 1986

It further took the position that plaintiff’s claim was “clearly barred by the provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act,” N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to :12-3. … Only a “qualified person” may claim indemnification from the Fund, N.J.S.A. 39:6-69; and N.J.S.A. 39:6-62 excludes from the definition of a “qualified person” anyone who is an insured under an insurance policy providing UM

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."

Sokolay v. Edlin

65 N.J. Super. 112 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 16, 1961

The deposition, interrogatories and testimony of the plaintiff at the preliminary hearing clearly show that the statement by Edlin was made without malice. … We find no genuine issue of fact established to defeat the defense of qualified privilege. Accordingly, the summary judgment as to the defendants Edlin and Humiston on the second count is affirmed.

DelaCruz v. Borough of Hillsdale

183 N.J. 149 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 12, 2005

immunity. … Thus, if the police officer's actions were objectively reasonable, the officer will be entitled to qualified immunity.

Silverstein v. Northrop Grumman Corp.

367 N.J. Super. 361 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 10, 2004

the Boyle test so as to qualify for the defense. … The government contractor defense may be raised by nonmilitary contractors; and here, the corporate defendants have successfully established all of the elements enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Boyle to qualify

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.

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.

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.