Case law

Tilton v. Brombacher

232 N.J. Super. 374 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1989

Defendant, while denying the factual scenario, has argued that tavern-owner liability, as established in Rappaport v. … This statute clearly shows the intent of the Legislature concerning package store liability.

Jersey Shore Medical Center-Fitkin Hospital v. Estate of Baum

84 N.J. 137 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 2, 1980

There is no doubt that the cost of hospital and medical care qualifies as a necessary expense. Capodanno v. Capodanno, supra. See generally 10 NJ.Practice §§ 335 et seq. … The hospital argues that, although a wife is immune from liability for the debts of her husband under N.J.S.A. 37:2-15, the immunity does not extend to debts of the husband’s estate.

Reed v. Bojarski

166 N.J. 89 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 23, 2001

Although the pre-employment physical clearly does not establish a traditional physician-patient relationship, that is of no moment. … Furthermore, when appropriate, the physician should suggest that the patient seek care from a qualified physician and, if requested, provide reasonable assistance in securing follow-up care.

Boyd v. Conrail

291 N.J. Super. 608 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 2, 1996

There's evidence — or there's case law from other states that clearly indicate that there's no particular duty to provide a watchman. … Conrail was clearly on notice that persons constantly and persistently intruded upon a particular area within the land.

WITT v. CITY OF VINELAND

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

Defendants also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim. … “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

State v. Battle

256 N.J. Super. 268 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 12, 1992

This argument is clearly without merit and does not require discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). … Hence, a disorderly persons offense qualifies as a prior conviction. State v. Kates, 185 N.J. Super. 226, 227-28 , 447 A. 2d 1367 (Law Div. 1982).

In re the Contest of the Alleged Election of Donahay

21 N.J. Misc. 360 · Monmouth County Circuit Court, N.J. · Aug 2, 1943

In an election contest, where fraudulent or illegal voting has been clearly established, it is the duty of the court, when the court can determine with reasonable certainty the number of the fraudulent or illegal votes cast … The terms “legally qualified voter” and “qualified elector” which are used repeatedly in the act, clearly indicate the requirement for registration.

BANDA v. CORNIEL

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 4, 2021

to qualified immunity. … Consequently, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing qualified immunity. Thomas v.

Steven Rodas v. Town of West New York

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2025

Finally, the trial court found Rodriguez was entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff produced insufficient evidence on which a factfinder could find that Rodriguez violated plaintiff's clearly established rights … Qualified Immunity.

Zacarias v. Allstate Insurance

168 N.J. 590 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 3, 2001

Jeffries, 93 N.J. 533, 549 , 461 A.2d 1145 (1983) (concluding that doctrine of parental immunity will no longer insulate parent from liability for willful or wanton failure to supervise children). … And we are also convinced that reasonable expectations of coverage raised by the declaration page cannot be contradicted by the policy’s boilerplate unless the declaration page itself clearly so warns the insured. [ Lehrhoff

Selective Insurance v. National Continental Insurance

385 N.J. Super. 62 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 2006

As the owner and operator of a commercial vehicle, National’s insured qualified as a tortfeasor who was not required to maintain PIP benefits. See Sherman v. … N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 undoubtedly affords personal immunity from claims for PIP reimbursement to commercial motor vehicle owners and operators who have insurance coverage.

In Re Christie

218 B.R. 27 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 3, 1998

Richard Christie, FD-001142-86, the Superior Court of New Jersey entered an order on February 13, 1986, establishing a $40.00 per week obligation. … First, the Court determined that the language of the Act indicates that Congress clearly intended to abrogate the State’s immunity. Id.

THE ESTATE OF JIMMY LEE TESTA v. FALLICK

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 24, 2023

Second, the Court must consider “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the official’s actions.” Id. “An answer in the negative to either prong entitles an officer to qualified immunity.” … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis because Defendants may indeed have violated a clearly established constitutional right if the jury concludes that Testa did not pose an immediate threat to them.

Risoldi v. Risoldi

320 N.J. Super. 524 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1999

Risoldi['s] pension, and that will be done through a qualified domestic relations order. … Clearly, the portion of the contributions and services to the plan made during the marriage relate to the joint efforts of the marital partners.

National Amusements v. Turnpike Auth.

261 N.J. Super. 468 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 26, 1992

Therefore, National Amusements, Inc. is advised, not to proceed with any further development of the remaining portion of the property until a final, fixed property right-of-way line is established for the subject acquisition … In its letter of September 16, 1985 plaintiff clearly set forth its position that until the Turnpike "commits itself, officially and legally, to a — binding cause of action —" plaintiff was not bound by the Turnpike's actions

Gallo Asphalt Co. v. Sagner

71 N.J. 405 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 8, 1976

The D.O.T. hearing was clearly a "civil proceeding" within the meaning of R. 3:9-2 and Judge Ackerman's orders, and therefore no reliance whatsoever should have been placed upon the pleas. … A perusal of the record establishes beyond cavil that there was no such understanding.

ROSTISLAV VILSHTEYN VS. POLICE OFFICER MININO GOROSPE (L-4417-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 4, 2020

When a plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully arrested, an officer—like here—can assert qualified immunity by establishing that there existed probable cause or that a reasonable officer would have believed that probable … If the right was not clearly established at the time, the inquiry ends there, and the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 199.

State v. Ashby

81 N.J. Super. 350 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 29, 1963

Pometti the court stated (at p. 521) that even if such an agreement were made, defendant is charged with the knowledge that it is clearly illegal. … His letter to Judge Wick clearly set out that fact.

Grant W. Morgan v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 7, 2016

The main and novel legal issue presented to us is whether the qualified immunity from civil liability granted to funeral directors under N.J.S.A. 45:7-95 and N.J.S.A. 45:27-22(d) extends to interns who are employed by funeral … We conclude that the statutory immunity does extend to such interns. The trial judge consequently did not err in charging the elements of the immunity to the jury. 10/21/15 CAROL JACOBY VS.

Evans-Aristocrat Industries, Inc. v. City of Newark

140 N.J. Super. 226 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 17, 1976

It is obvious the Legislature realized the catastrophic effect an injunction might have on the various public projects under the control of the Port Authority, and established safeguards so that such suits were maintainable … commissioners, officers or employees except upon complaint of the Attorney-General of either State, each of whom is expressly authorized to bring any proceeding for an injunction, in his discretion, on behalf of any person. *232 Clearly