Case law

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.

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

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.

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.

Nesbitt v. Board of Managers

10 N.J. Misc. 19 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 10, 1931

It enjoys this immunity as one of the essential attributes of sovereignty, it being an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized nations that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent … After stating that an interpretation which would make a statute operative to affect a state is not to be given unless the legislature’s purpose to do so is clearly indicated, the vice-chancellor adds, “it is, I take it, essentially

Deal Yeshiva, Inc. v. Deal Borough

16 N.J. Tax 599 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 20, 1997

The well settled rule in this State is that the party claiming an exemption has the burden of establishing that it clearly qualifies for tax exempt status. … On the other hand, even though the statute does not qualify the two parsonages as having to be “in this State”, the Legislature can only establish statutory exemptions for properties located in New Jersey.

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.

RUIZ v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 9, 2020

right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

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.

McCarthy v. NAT. ASSOC. FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING

87 N.J. Super. 442 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 29, 1965

The question for determination is whether the defendants as releasees have validly immunized themselves against liability for an alleged act of negligence committed after the execution of general releases. … Statutes have been passed from time to time establishing certain standards of conduct to prevent damages and consequent *448 injury. In Evers v.

EDWARDS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 30, 2020

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials “performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To resolve a claim of qualified immunity, courts engage in a two-pronged inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff sufficiently alleged the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established

Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n v. East Brunswick Tp.

180 N.J. Super. 68 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 23, 1981

Additionally, the establishment of two separate lists for qualified male and female candidates did not constitute an unlawful or discriminatory practice contrary to N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 and N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(a). … The testing procedures established by the township in 1980 as a result of the complaint filed by the Division of Civil Rights achieved an important governmental objective — the establishment of a larger pool of qualified,

Contest of the Alleged Election of Erickson

18 N.J. Misc. 5 · Hudson County Circuit Court, N.J. · Dec 21, 1939

An exemption was claimed from taxation because the building taxed was to be used for purposes which, under the statute, granted immunity from taxation. The building taxed was in the course of construction. … A person’s residence in those days was clearly indicated and shown by his mode of life and well understood by his neighbor.

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

Santos v. Standard Havens, Inc.

225 N.J. Super. 16 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 13, 1988

The record submitted on appeal establishes that Riverdale, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hess Brothers, Inc. … Such protection was legislated as a quid pro quo — strict liability in Workers' Compensation in exchange for immunity from common law liability for negligence.

MARY RICHTER VS. OAKLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION (L-0742-15, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 11, 2019

Citing Victor, the Court ruled: To establish a failure-to-accommodate claim under the LAD, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she (1) "qualifies as an individual with a disability … Clearly, actions that affect wages, benefits, or result in direct economic harm qualify.

WHITE v. CITY OF VINELAND

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 12, 2020

Qualified immunity Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly … issue was clearly established when the conduct took place.

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.’”

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.

VINTZILEOS

District Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 20, 2025

Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless they “(1) violated a constitutional right that (2) was clearly established when [they] acted.” Stringer v. Cnty. of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76, 85 (3d Cir. 2025). … Indeed, “the fact-bound nature of the clearly established inquiry combined with the dearth of facts at the pleading stage makes it difficult for a defendant to claim qualified immunity on the pleadings before discovery.