Case law

C.A.L. v. State of New Jersey

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jan 28, 2026

immunity, or that plaintiffs did not comply with the TCA’s notice requirements. … Torres, 222 N.J. 104, 116 (2015) (describing the CRA as “New Jersey’s analogue to a Section 1983 action” and noting that 25 “[f]or purposes of analyzing” qualified immunity “the

State v. Klapprott

127 N.J.L. 395 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Dec 5, 1941

“It does not appear that the statute in question is so clearly in contravention of our constitutional law that there can be no reasonable doubt about it. Eor the reasons stated the demurrers are overruled.” … Unbridled license in the matter of speech has no absolute immunity either in the federal courts or the courts of the states generally. (Cf. Gitlow v.

Summit Bank v. U.S. Department of Treasury-Bureau of Public Debt

24 F. Supp. 2d 382 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 30, 1998

The declaratory relief sought had a “conspicuous impact beyond establishing a right to the disallowed funds” and that this “prospective, independent significance ... makes it ... the primary relief sought by the State.” … Under the present circumstances, jurisdiction in the district court is not proper where, as here, “the [equitable] relief sought simply establishes the ... legal entitlement to the principal remedy, and does not expand it

State v. Marshall

148 N.J. 89 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Mar 5, 1997

Second, under any standard, the PCR court’s finding was clearly erroneous. … Defense counsel asserted that it must have lasted more than ten minutes, although he could not recall clearly.

Henderson v. New Jersey Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors

85 N.J. Super. 509 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 8, 1964

of the Board that he has the educational background and experience to qualify to take such examination. … The latter section, providing for licensing without examination, is clearly an exception to the general provision of N. J. S. A. 45 :5A-9, which requires an examination.

Watts v. Internal Revenue Service

925 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 19, 1996

A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is only proper, however, when the claim “ ‘clearly appears to be immaterial.’ ” Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1408 (3d Cir.) (quoting Bell v. … The Internal Revenue Service enjoys sovereign immunity as an agency of the United States unless that immunity has been waived by Congress. See Jorden v.

Lowe v. Zarghami

158 N.J. 606 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 7, 1999

In 1994 the Act was amended to extend immunity from liability to public employees to the same degree that public entities are immune from suit. … The opinion found that the Board of Trustees of the College of Medicine and Dentistry [soon to be reorganized as part of the University of Medicine and Dentistry] was “clearly authorized” to establish faculty practice programs

Karolis v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

935 F. Supp. 523 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 19, 1996

The Court denied the motion, finding that the RFRA clearly expressed a congressional intention to abrogate the states’ usual Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Karolis v. … According to the plaintiff, the Mantoux test is clearly an “intrusive medical procedure” which substantially burdens his religious beliefs.

GIBSON v. VALVANO

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 17, 2023

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary functions ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … “When properly applied, [qualified immunity] protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Spady v. Bethlehem Area Sch.

Wasserman v. Schwartz

364 N.J. Super. 399 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 14, 2001

Here, Stephen Schwartz has failed to establish that *836 any of the assets specified in the Bishop report as includible in the marital estate, or the monies held by his criminal defense attorney and his bank, are immune from … The Court in Painter also held that any incremental value to such property also enjoys a like immunity. Id.

FILIPOWSKI v. STACK

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 25, 2025

Qualified Immunity (Individual-Capacity Claims) Even if Plaintiff had alleged underlying constitutional violations, which he has not, the individual defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity … No clearly established law confers a right to disregard a podium/decorum rule at a public meeting or to continue speaking after being ruled out of order in a legislative hearing.

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.

ALI-X v. MCKISHEN

District Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 11, 2019

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established … “The second prong of the qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation.”

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

Madej v. Doe

194 N.J. Super. 580 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 27, 1984

In response to the Supreme Court's abrogation of the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity from tort liability in Willis v. Cons. & Ec. Dev. … That case deals with the tendency of the courts to permit a plaintiff to have his case heard on the merits once it has been clearly established that the court has jurisdiction.

Stinson v. Delaware River Port Authority

935 F. Supp. 531 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 2, 1996

In order to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory discharge, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified for the position from which he or she was discharged … The DRPA does not dispute that the Plaintiff, as a woman, is a member of a protected class, or that she was qualified for the position from which she was discharged.

GWIAZDOWSKI v. MARUCA

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

“The doctrine of 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 … (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established.

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.

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.

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.