Case law

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

381 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 24, 2005

The official immunity of the type asserted by Defendant is a colorable federal defense. Bahrs, 795 F.Supp. at 969 . … NJDEP does not dispute Defendant’s assertion that it is a person under the statute, and most courts have held that a corporation such as Defendant qualifies as a person. Crackau v.

Harris Thrown Silk Corp. v. Harris

95 N.J. Eq. 351 · New Jersey Court of Chancery · Dec 19, 1923

At the conclusion of the hearing I was inclined to the view that the defendants had not succeeded in establishing that the complainant corporation had knowledge in fact of the transaction referred to. … The facts indicate clearly that as soon as the Gosho Corporation became completely in control of the Harris Corporation by the transfer of the stock mentioned to it, and Harris’ contract with the Harris Corporation had been

Salorio v. Glaser

82 N.J. 482 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 26, 1980

Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, the burden of demonstrating that non-residents are the “peculiar source” clearly lies with the State. Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. at 526 , 98 S.Ct. at 2488 , 57 *504 L.Ed.2d at 405. … Noting that property taxes are paid by any non-resident who owns property in New Jersey, plaintiffs argue that such taxes do not qualify as “taxes imposed upon residents alone” under Austin .

Tac v. New Jersey Dep. of Environmental Protection

408 N.J. Super. 117 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 2009

Thus, to qualify as an "innocent party," an IPG applicant must satisfy the following statutory criteria: A person qualifies for an innocent party grant if that person acquired the property prior to December 31, 1983, the … We are mindful that administrative regulations enjoy a presumption of validity and should be upheld unless clearly ultra vires on their face. N.J. Ass'n of Health Care Facilities v.

Kenney v. Scientific, Inc.

204 N.J. Super. 228 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 3, 1985

The underlying purpose of the legislation was to "re-establish immunity for all governmental bodies within its definition of `public entity.'" Burg v. State, 147 N.J. Super. 316, 320 (App. Div. 1977); English v. … Whether this allegation seeks to establish strict liability or negligence per se, it must fail. Plaintiffs have failed to spell out clearly exactly what federal or State laws the generators have violated.

State v. Fort

197 N.J. Super. 113 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 25, 1984

We find all of these contentions are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Defendant Muhammed further contends that his sentence represents an abuse of discretion. We find this contention is clearly without merit. … As modified, the sentences comply with the guidelines established in State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) and State v. Hodge, 95 N.J. 369 (1984). As modified, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.

First Charter National Bank v. Ericson

74 N.J. 300 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 3, 1977

Ericson was clearly moved by such an impulse. He bequeathed to his wife all of his tangible personalty. He made her the life beneficiary of the inter vivos trust of March 7, 196?. … Article II séeks to immunize the marital share from the payment of all death duties.

Kelly v. Gwinnell

190 N.J. Super. 320 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 29, 1983

This expansion of tort liability was abrogated by the California legislature which conferred immunity upon the social host. … In Coulter , the court clearly and unequivocally held that a civil common law cause of action existed against social hosts for furnishing intoxicating liquors to obviously intoxicated persons.

Ammond v. McGahn

390 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 5, 1975

IMMUNITY AND STATE ACTION First, defendants argue that they are immune from civil liability under the Civil Rights Act. In support of immunity, defendants cite Tenney v. … The court decided that, at best, the defendants had a qualified immunity, and left no doubt that the claim of immunity might not withstand the broad reach of federal power.

BROWN v. HADDON TOWNSHIP

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 7, 2021

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … established” prong of the qualified immunity analysis.

Owens v. Feigin

394 N.J. Super. 85 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 21, 2007

Defendant emphasizes the “waive immunities” language, but the TCA notice requirement is not an immunity. … Ct. 71, 596 N.E.2d 376, 379-81 (1992), the court held that the Massachusetts CRA did not waive the state’s sovereign immunity as established by its TCA.

Trenton Church of Christ v. City of Trenton

3 N.J. Tax 267 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 26, 1981

The sole issue involved is whether plaintiff’s use and occupancy of the subject property qualifies under either of the above uses. … Otherwise any individual whose home is in New Jersey and who incorporated here for religious purposes and who evangelized all over the country would be entitled to the immunity.

MARC ZITTER v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (L-2202-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2022

"Objective reasonableness will be established if the actor's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional or statutory right." N.E. for J.V. v. State Dep't of Child. and Fams., Div. of Youth & Fam. … Finally, plaintiff obtained a full and fair adjudication of the issue of qualified immunity in federal court.

Willis v. Ashby

353 N.J. Super. 104 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 9, 2002

The exception to this principle of liability applies where the employee is entitled to any of the TCA's immunities. N.J.S.A. 59:3-1(b) and (c). No such immunity attaches to the acts of treating physicians. … II Plaintiffs argue that the motion judge wrongly ruled they had failed as a matter of law to establish their claim to pain-and-suffering damages under N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d).

NASH v. COUNTY OF MERCER

District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 8, 2020

Qualified immunity protects 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 known.” … Qualified immunity applies unless (1) the facts that a plaintiff has alleged show a violation of a constitutional right and, if so; (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s

Camden Bd. of Educ. v. McGreevey

369 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2004

The party challenging a statute as unconstitutional must "demonstrate clearly that it violates a constitutional provision." Ibid. … If a hearing establishes that the district "has failed to take or is unable to take the corrective actions necessary to establish a thorough and efficient system of education, the commissioner shall recommend" that the State

Honorable Dana L. Redd v. Vance Bowman

433 N.J. Super. 178 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 29, 2013

"That sampling clearly establishes that the Legislature has determined, on multiple occasions, those municipal matters that should not be called before the voters in a referendum." … The burden is on the party seeking to defeat the Faulkner Act to clearly establish the existence of a contrary legislative intent.

State v. Zamorsky

159 N.J. Super. 273 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 1978

We are confident that this child had sufficient moral responsibility to qualify as a witness. … The brief in interrogation clearly was limited to the child's qualification to be a witness. The most that was established was her understanding of the duty to tell the truth. This accorded with Evid.

DEAN v. BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 12, 2021

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . … Properly applied, qualified immunity “protects ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’”

Rogotzki v. Schept

91 N.J. Super. 135 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 28, 1966

Super. 318 (1956), clearly indicated that the broadest possible latitude should be accorded pretrial discovery. … No. 34 would appear to call for a conclusion, but it is one which a qualified surgeon could make by mere observation.