Case law

Green v. Green

899 F. Supp. 2d 291 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 24, 2012

It clearly states that Mrs. Green, as the alternate payee, is to receive 47.5 percent of Plaintiffs monthly pension payments. … In addition, the Plaintiff has failed to establish a cause of action for malicious prosecution as he has not established that the underlying civil action terminated in his favor.

SANCHEZ v. ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 12, 2022

Notwithstanding the above, the Elizabeth BOE Defendants argue that Planitiffs cannot show that Defendant Troiano violated a clearly established law – the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. … Twp., 463 F.3d 285, 293 (3d Cir. 2006), a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

ALEXANDER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2026

Defendants Magenheimer and Barrera argue they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. (D.E. 180-3 at 50.) … The doctrine of 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

Citro v. STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, ETC.

55 N.J. Super. 295 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 27, 1959

Justice Case in a dissenting opinion in Milstrey ( 6 N.J. at page 424 ) referred to the foregoing statement from Saco and clearly defined its significance. … The main issue in the Milstrey case was municipal immunity from liability. A reading of the majority and minority opinions indicates substantial concurrence in the applicable rule of contributory negligence.

Eureka Printing Co. v. Div., Etc., Dept. of Labor & Industry

21 N.J. 383 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 23, 1956

Although specific limitations had been established earlier in Roman and English Law, the first general limitation applicable to personal actions in the common law was enacted in 1623. … See Note, Immunity from Statutes of Limitations and Other Doctrines Favoring the United States as Plaintiff, 55 Col L. Rev. 1177 (1955).

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.

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.”

Williams v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.

132 N.J. 109 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 3, 1993

Although, as the Appellate Division pointed out, we said in Erickson that we had previously declared that “malice in the context of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence,” 117 N.J. at … The incorrect jury charge was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. See Rule 2:10-2. *124 III The judgment of the Appellate Division on plaintiffs remaining claims of error is affirmed.

D.W. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

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

Plaintiff argues that neither Israel nor Beasley is entitled to qualified immunity because Individual Defendants unreasonably violated Plaintiff’s clearly-established due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by … As such, qualified immunity will only be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion “when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint.” Leveto v.

Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.

242 N.J. Super. 36 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 1, 1990

Thus, a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists. … Balis, as a biochemist, was qualified to testify as to causation in specific human beings.

Eason v. NJAFIUA

274 N.J. Super. 364 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 30, 1994

At oral argument on the summary judgment motion, the attorney for JUA conceded that someone other than plaintiff filled out the application. *369 Plaintiff was, however, sent renewals of her insurance policy clearly setting … The statute provides: A public entity is liable for injury caused by a condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately

BURGA v. CITY OF PLAINFIELD

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 11, 2020

The second prong of qualified immunity asks whether the right was so clearly established that the officers should have known that they were committing a constitutional violation under the circumstances. … Here the right was not clearly established.

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 .

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

CORCORAN v. CAUWELS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 9, 2019

In determining the applicability of qualified immunity, a court must determine {i) whether the alleged facts demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right and (ii) whether that right was “‘clearly established’ at … But at the pleading stage, “‘a plaintiff has no obligation to plead a violation of clearly established law in order to avoid dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.” Thomas, 463 F.3d at 293.

Gerhardt v. Sullivan

107 N.J. Eq. 374 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 23, 1930

Hanks, 136 U.S. 300 ), is qualified, as pointed out by Vice-Chancellor Berry, in Walker v. Burnett, supra. The point *Page 378 evidently was not submitted on the appeal. 101 N.J. Eq. 793 . … They do not affect rights safeguarded by the fundamental law and immune to legislative action.

Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

118 F. Supp. 2d 494 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 2, 2000

Bowers claims that he can establish a causal link. … Neither Temple nor Iowa has yet sought summary judgment on the ground that they are immune from Bowers's suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity embodied in the Eleventh Amendment.

Shamberg v. New Jersey Shore Line Railroad

73 N.J.L. 572 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 18, 1906

In this connection it is to be noted that, under our General Eailroad law, to the agent itself is committed, not only the right to locate its road, but also the duty of qualifying itself by such location to perform the condition … That the property rights of the state in the located road arc private rights is established law. That they cannot be granted or condemned has already been pointed out.

Bauer v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In re Oncology Associates of Ocean County LLC)

510 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 10, 2014

principles of sovereign immunity. … of § 544(b), observing that “where there exists a plausible interpretation of a provision that would preserve immunity— even if that interpretation is not the only reading available — that ‘is enough to establish that a

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.