Case law

Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania Railroad

25 N.J. 541 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 20, 1958

This view was clearly stated in Payne v. Pullman Co., 13 Ill. App. 2d 105 , 141 N. E. 2d 83, 89 (Ill. App. Ct. 1957). … “Where the case is clearly or admittedly one of qualified privilege, and there is no evidence, or not more than a scintilla of evidence, of malice, it is the duty of the trial judge to withdraw that issue from the consideration

CAPPS v. DIXON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2024

Officer Dixon contends the maneuvers did not violate clearly established law, so he is entitled to qualified immunity. [Dixon Br. in Capps at 4–7; Dixon Br. in Joyce at 5–8.] … Such conduct does not violate any clearly established law. Accordingly, a finding of qualified immunity would be warranted in the alternative.

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

Conover v. Guarantee Trust Co.

88 N.J. Eq. 450 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 24, 1917

It accordingly seems impossible to construe an immunity clause as intended to exempt a trustee from liability for transcending his powers as clearly defined by the trust agreement; his engagement is to exercise the powers … , and only the powers conferred upon him, and the appropriate office and purpose of an immunity clause forming a part of a trust agreement which specifically and clearly defines the trustee's powers appears to be to limit

GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity of the Individual NJDEP Defendants Plaintiffs suit also names three individuals—LaTourette, Squazzo, and Dench—who hold various positions within NJDEP.® The qualified immunity doctrine “shield[s] … A court hearing a claim to qualified immunity must determine both whether the plaintiff has shown a violation of a constitutional right and whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged constitutional

State v. Hancock

35 N.J.L. 537 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 15, 1871

This, apparently, would have afforded the most definite and practical measure by which to ascertain the extent of the immunity of these companies. … But this, I think, is clearly a mistake; and it is a mistake which has introduced confusion.

State of New Jersey v. Mocco

206 B.R. 691 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 1997

On an appeal from the bankruptcy court, findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, but issues of law are properly reviewed by the district court in a plenary fashion. Bankr.Rule 8013; In re J.P. … Supreme Court has established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another state.” Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.

State v. Jijon

264 N.J. Super. 405 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 20, 1993

Defendant’s contentions -are clearly without merit. R. 2:11—3(e)(2). It is now well established that burglary is complete upon entry with purpose of committing an offense. See State v. … Defendant’s argument that the joyriding conviction immunizes him from the third degree burglary conviction because the former is a disorderly persons offense is a non sequitur.

<font color="red">DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE</font>- TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-cv-14819

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 6, 2023

Qualified immunity is generally upheld on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint. Leveto v. … Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.

Environmental Protection Dep't v. Franklin Tp.

181 N.J. Super. 309 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 4, 1981

, it would have clearly so stated. … Washington Tp., both supra, establish that *337 property acquired by a state agency otherwise entitled to an exemption from taxation is not immune from the imposition of rollback taxes once a change in use has occurred.

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.

State v. Boiardo

34 N.J. 599 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 8, 1961

This proviso does not mean that a naked claim must be sustained unless the interrogator establishes affirmatively the wholly *606 negative proposition that no conceivable hazard can exist. … , unless it clearly appears that the basis for apprehension which was affirmatively revealed is nullified by such other circumstances.

ROBERT FUHRMAN VS. HEATHER MAILANDER (L-4906-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 9, 2021

Ct. 1913), the Court explained: when the fact clearly appears that a statutory provision is entirely directory in character; that the essential purpose of the law has been answered; that … Defendant's ministerial duty under N.J.S.A. 40:69A-187 was to determine whether the petition was "signed by a sufficient number of qualified voters."

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.

Nj Sports Prod. v. Bostick Promotions

405 N.J. Super. 173 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 25, 2007

A motion to dismiss "may not be denied based on the possibility that discovery may establish the requisite claim; rather, the legal requisites for plaintiffs claim must be apparent from the complaint itself." Edwards v. … The court denied summary judgment to allow for discovery and a hearing as to whether the privilege should be no more than a qualified one. The factual context of Devlin is significantly different than the present case.

Gaul v. AT & T, INC.

955 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 21, 1997

Clearly, “unduly stressful” jobs do not constitute a recognized occupational classification. Therefore, the plaintiff is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working. … In that case, the court found that it would be unreasonable to require the defendant to “place plaintiff in a virtually stress-free environment and immunize him from any criticism in order to accommodate his disability.”

Pulley v. Legreide (In Re Pulley)

295 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2003

As to debt immunity, while Kish III considers the State to have partially immunized itself from MTF debts, 33 this court is more inclined to see that immunity as potentially total. … This would be the case, it is submitted, even if the liquidating insurer were a clearly private enterprise.

LIVESAY v. MURPHY

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

Defining the constitutional right at issue for qualified immunity purposes is critical in assessing whether or not that right was “clearly established.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 (1987). … Once a defendant raises the defense of qualified immunity, it is the plaintiff's burden to delineate the constitutional right that was violated and show that it was clearly established at the time of the conduct at issue

ECKERT v. ATLANTIC COUNTY JUSTICE FACILITY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 23, 2024

“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 … Plaintiff's claim was thus clearly established, and Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's excessive force claims.

Whitfield v. BONANNO REAL ESTATE

419 N.J. Super. 547 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 2011

Whether each joint venturer can be deemed the employer of all the employees engaged in the work of the joint enterprise must clearly depend on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the joint venture. [ Id. at … We concluded, however, that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against the defendant, and therefore affirmed the dismissal of his complaint which "moot[ed] resolution of the employment