Case law

M.R. v. Smolar Group, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 10, 2024

POINT V BECAUSE [PLAINTIFF]'S LIBERTY RIGHT IN CONTINUING AS AN RCRP RECIPIENT WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF HER RETURN TO STATE PRISON, SESSOMES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR DEPRIVING HER OF … "The doctrine of qualified immunity operates to shield 'government officials performing discretionary functions generally . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

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.

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

Textar Painting Corp. v. Delaware River Port Authority

296 N.J. Super. 251 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 29, 1996

Clearly, the policy of both states is complementary and thus, open competitive bidding is applicable. … Courts can intervene only in those rare circumstances in which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy.

CARTER v. RED BANK BOROUGH

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 31, 2020

“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 … clearly established at the time of a defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Berel Co. v. Sencit F/G McKinley Associates

710 F. Supp. 530 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 3, 1989

The Agency, established by the New Jersey Legislature in 1983, 13 emerged as the product of a consolidation of two previously existing agencies, the New Jersey Housing Finance Agency (“HFA”) (established to assist in financing … was, we do not think that mere preparation of the Agreement will suffice to establish liability. 7 .

Antonio Chaparro Nieves v. Office of the Public Defender (082262)(Union County & Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 15, 2020

It is well recognized that, through the TCA, the Legislature established that generally, immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception. “Public entity” is a defined term in the TCA. … It is well recognized that, through the TCA, the Legislature established that “[g]enerally, immunity for public entities is the rule and liability is the exception.” Fluehr v.

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.

Starr v. Reynolds (In Re Reynolds)

193 B.R. 195 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 5, 1996

Appellants also appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s decision not to qualify Appellants’ real estate appraiser as an expert witness. … In defining the term “clearly erroneous” the United States Supreme Court has stated that “[a] finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left

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.

In Re Application of Waterfront Comm. of NY Harbor

35 N.J. 62 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 22, 1961

A strike is not immune under all conditions from any form of governmental regulation. The Waterfront Act does not purport to define the dimensions of the *67 right to strike. … A state may regulate union activity only when the activity is clearly not protected by § 7 or prohibited by § 8 of the LMRA. 29 U. S. C. A. §§ 157, 158.

Leider v. Pitock

15 N.J. Super. 592 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Sep 17, 1951

it, or unless it is clearly shown to be erroneous in matter of law. … While this might properly affect the weight accorded his opinion by the trial court, it would not affect his competency as an expert witness, properly and factually established.

GREENE v. ELIZABETH POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from suit and from liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory of constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … the law was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

Altemose Construction Co. v. Atlantic, Cape May & Parts of Burlington, Ocean & Cumberland Counties Building Trades Council

493 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 19, 1980

When a motion is made under rule 12(b)(6) it will be denied unless there are clearly no set of facts that can be proved which might entitle the plaintiff to relief. Conley v. … Sherman Act jurisdiction could be established, rather, by demonstrating that the defendants’ brokerage activity had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. McLain v.

Fuchilla v. Layman

109 N.J. 319 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Feb 8, 1988

With respect to the fifth Urbano factor, the 1981 amendments to the enabling statute for the first time established UMDNJ as “a body corporate and politic.” … The difference between the substantive standard for negligence, which was clearly a legislative concern in the Act, and the Law’s implicit emphasis on motive or intent suggests that the Legislature did not intend that the

Precipio v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

103 N.J.L. 589 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 24, 1927

It was for the purpose of having contracts of insurance read clearly and intelligibly to the ordinary understanding of men, that the legislature, in 1886, provided for a uniform, or standard, policy of insurance. … But it is an equally well-established rule of law that the question whether a witness is. duly qualified to give expert testimony is a preliminary question for the court to decide.”