Case law

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.

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.

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.

Seals v. County of Morris

210 N.J. 157 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 14, 2012

The panel deduced from the language of Contey one controlling principle—that “governmental entities [have] the duty to establish standards for the initial placement and continued existence of utility poles along the roadways … Plaintiff was clearly mistaken when he advised the trial court that N.J.SA 59:4-2 was inapplicable because the County did not own the pole or because it was not on the County’s property.

IAN M. SCHWEIZER v. NEW JERSEY STATE POLICE (L-1733-19, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 8, 2022

On the merits, the judge determined DeLorenzo was entitled to qualified immunity because he had not violated any of Schweizer's "clearly established" rights and had acted with probable cause. … However, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields law enforcement officers and other government officials "'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or

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.

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.

Cavuoti v. New Jersey Transit Corp.

161 N.J. 107 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 10, 1999

Plaintiff claims that the men chosen for the positions were not as qualified as he when comparing their training, mechanical experience, and management skills. … Although Maiorino is persuasive authority regarding the substantive correctness of a jury charge, it is well established that the question of whether plain error occurred depends on whether the error was clearly capable of

RAPEIKA v. BOROUGH OF FORT LEE

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 3, 2020

Qualified immunity “shields government agents 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 known … Because qualified immunity protects government agents from suit, it “should be resolved as early as possible.” /d. The inquiry into qualified immunity, however, is fact intensive.

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.

State v. Boncelet

107 N.J. Super. 444 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Nov 17, 1969

[Emphasis added] It is clearly worded and does no more than furnish the means whereby under certain conditions the amount budgeted in a given account may be augmented by the excess remaining in another account. … We find the proofs adequate to establish the necessary intent.

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

Tobin v. United States

170 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 2001

The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) grants a limited, qualified waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1994). … Thus, these facts fit within the ambit established in Richards, that Plaintiff “ ‘would not, except in the event of the rarest coincidence, have been in the same place at the same time with the same purpose, had it not been

Crawn v. Campo

266 N.J. Super. 599 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 30, 1993

We reject as clearly without merit Campo's cross-appeal contention that Crawn's cause of action should have been dismissed *602 because of his failure to present expert testimony. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). See Butler v. … assumption of risk, "an alternate expression for the proposition that defendant was not negligent, i.e., either owed no duty or did not breach the duty owed," and "secondary" assumption of risk, "an affirmative defense to an established

DEBBLAY v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 27, 2023

Qualified immunity “Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory … or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Swanson v. Swanson

8 N.J. 169 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Nov 19, 1951

the *179 ends of justice in the very cause for the protection of which the immunity is invoked. … Clearly this case holds the immunity rule does not apply to the service of process on non-residents in contempt proceedings, but the case does not go so far as to intimate that the process in criminal contempt proceedings

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

BAKER v. CARTER

District Court, D. New Jersey · May 19, 2025

a constitutional right” and “the right was clearly established” at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. … Here, there are no allegations in the Complaint pleading Corey’s violation of a clearly established constitutional right.

Ge Capital Mortg. v. Nj Title Ins.

333 N.J. Super. 1 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 10, 2000

Plaintiff insists that it should be permitted to utilize the court system to establish a viable and enforceable claim against the Fund. … This proposed collateral approach would directly violate the procedure established by our Supreme Court for the processing of such claims.

Johnson v. Paparozzi

219 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 16, 2002

, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … In making the determination that the establishment of a future parole eligibility date pursuant to (a) ... and (c) above is clearly inappropriate, the three-member panel shall consider the factors enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A