Case law

Mosca v. Cole

384 F. Supp. 2d 757 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 2005

applicant instead of a qualified white male applicant.” … When a white employee asserts that his employment was terminated based on a discriminatory animus, the McDonnell Douglas test for establishing a prima facie cases has three requirements: (i) plaintiff was qualified for the

CATALANO v. CITY OF TRENTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 31, 2019

Thus, qualified immunity will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 156, 161 (3d Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). … “whether the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.”

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.

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.

Borough of Englewood Cliffs v. Thomas J. Trautner

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 22, 2024

Lastly, the P.M. court found that because the FLS does not clearly extinguish our State's "modern thought" that sovereign "immunity exists unless expressly waived by the Legislature," id. at 92 (citing N.J.S.A. 59:1-2), … If the Legislature intended to afford immunity to public entities, it would have clearly stated so.

REARDON v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 7, 2020

Finally, 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 … Plaintiff makes no allegations that Defendant Simon’s alleged actions, even accepted as true, “violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

State v. State Supervisory Employees Association

78 N.J. 54 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 2, 1978

J. 17, 31 ,(1973), we held that the Legislature’s use of this strong qualifying language “clearly precluded any expansive approach” to the *62 negotiability of the terms and conditions of public employment. … We agree with PERC’s view that since all three pesons who are certified are clearly qualified, this proposal is procedural in nature and does not bear on criteria for promotion.

In Re the Petition Filed by the Freeholders of Hudson County

105 N.J.L. 57 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Oct 25, 1928

While in this day the right of the legislative branch of government to regulate the exercise of the franchise must be accepted as an established constitutional truism, and beyond the realm of reasonable criticism, still the … The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.”

LEONARD BEST, ETC. VS. CITY OF NEWARK (L-9051-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 11, 2019

In order to rebut the assertion of qualified immunity, plaintiff was required to show Ruane violated a "constitutional 'right [that] was clearly established' at the time that [Ruane] acted." Brown, 230 N.J. at 98. … The Third Circuit also rejected the officer's claim as to the second prong of the qualified immunity doctrine, that is, that he did not violate some clearly established constitutional right. Id. at 917.

Price v. Edwards

88 N.J.L. 582 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 4, 1916

The question as to the immunity of charitable institutions not organized under the laws of this state, from the imposition of a transfer tax, was presented in the case of Rothschild. 71 N. J. Eq. 210. … Thus we have it established by the settled law of this state that the exemption clause in the act of 1894 refers exclusively to domestic charitable corporations and that the Exemption act of 1898 refers to religious institutions

L.C. VS. MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-1292-17, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 9, 2021

Qualified immunity shields 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 … There's no clearly established privacy right violated by disclosure of juvenile records and the [MCPO] defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

WHY ASAP, LLC v. Compact Power

461 F. Supp. 2d 308 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 13, 2006

Lawsuits are ordinarily protected activity under Noerr-Pennington, but the Supreme Court has established a “sham exception.” See Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. … A lawsuit “does not qualify for ... immunity if it ‘is a mere sham to cover ... an attempt to interfere directly with the business relationships of a competitor.’ ” Id. (quoting Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v.

TORO v. ASAO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 25, 2022

In moving to dismiss based on qualified immunity, it appears that Defendants assumed that they would succeed on the first prong and did not argue, in the alternative, as to whether Defendant Ortiz violated a clearly established … a clearly established right.

United States v. Vigoa

656 F. Supp. 1499 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 27, 1987

The government goes on to argue that Rodriguez’s immunity agreement with the government was contingent on his being truthful, such that Rodriguez had every incentive to be truthful. … In this case Orestes Rodriguez is clearly unavailable and the government gave timely notice of its intention to move for admission of his grand jury testimony. 4 .

Nesmith v. Walsh Trucking Co.

247 N.J. Super. 360 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 27, 1989

Accordingly, defendants concluded that the jury was clearly entitled upon the evidence to find Braden was not negligent. … He was qualified to render an expert opinion based upon facts in evidence, his education, training and experience.

ROGER C. GATES VS. COUNTY OF PASSAIC (L-2925-17, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 2021

Vineland Bd. of Educ., 144 N.J. 84, 111 (1996) (explaining that a public entity did not meet its burden of establishing design or plan immunity for its drainage system because, although it pled the defense in its answer … However, the record establishes that it was given a limited opportunity to impeach on that issue.

THE ESTATE OF ULISSES M. RODRIGUEZ v. JOHNSON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 23, 2019

Denial of Medical Treatment: Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … Despite their reliance on only the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity, Defendants do not discuss any law dealing with medical training for corrections officers, drug overdoses, or other similar issues.

Signorile v. City of Perth Amboy

523 F. Supp. 2d 428 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2007

In addition, Defendants claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity from Signorile’s claims. … To establish a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that someone acted under the color of state law and deprived him of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C

Marshall v. Force MacHinery Co.

123 N.J. Super. 497 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 10, 1973

Clearly, the act was made applicable to first aid squad workers by virtue of N.J.S.A. 34:15-43. Compulsory insurance for the benefit of such workers was mandated by N.J.S.A. 34:15-43. … The co-employer is therefore entitled to invoke a complete statutory immunity in such cases, as compared to the statutory limitation of liability invoked by the employer in Farren .