Case law

Ragner Tech. Corp. v. Berardi

324 F. Supp. 3d 491 · District Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 22, 2018

Antitrust Immunity The Court next addresses whether Defendants are immune from antitrust liability. Both motions claim Defendants are immune from an antitrust claim as a basis for dismissal. … "But this immunity is [not] absolute." Id. In *513 Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v.

Seiden v. Marina Associates

315 N.J. Super. 451 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 21, 1998

handicapped or any unlawful employment practice against such person, unless the nature and extent of the handicap reasonably precludes the performance of the particular employment. [ N.J.S.A. 10:5-4.1] Unless it can be clearly … Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor, a jury could clearly find plaintiff was handicapped as defined in the LAD as required to satisfy the first prong of the test. [2] As to the second prong of the test,

Borough of Princeton v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer Cty.

169 N.J. 135 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 23, 2001

The Mercer and Morris agreements clearly, however, do not qualify for the forty-year duration limit. … The Mercer agreement clearly does not qualify for the McEnroe Act procurement process.

Green v. Jersey City Board of Education

177 N.J. 434 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Aug 11, 2003

When another statute clearly establishes a remedy and does not limit the application of that remedy, as in the case of CEPA, the general immunity of the TCA must fall. … We believe that sovereign immunity is the baseline, as did the dissent in Abbamont.

Amelchenko v. Borough of Freehold

42 N.J. 541 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 24, 1964

S. 40:9-2 (a law concerning municipal immunity from liability in certain situations), represents a narrow construction of the statute. … The borough not only denied negligence but asserted immunity from liability under B.

Schwarz v. Port Authority Transit Corp.

305 N.J. Super. 581 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Dec 2, 1997

Moreover, the purpose of the surveillance camera was primarily to thwart fare-beaters at the turnstiles, and not to establish an area where PATCO intended to be alert to possible assaults on patrons. … We believe the Legislature has clearly precluded the imposition of liability on itself or its local agencies for acts of third parties____ [Id. at 363, 523 A.2d at 1124 .] More to the point, in Johnson v.

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.

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.

PEARSON v. SWEENEY

District Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 31, 2023

oO Finally,’ Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Plaintiff's claim as the basis for the claim was not clearly established. … “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 constitutional

SKELTON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 2026

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields government agents from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … To determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit, courts ask two questions: “(1) whether [Defendants] violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established

State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

12 N.J. 468 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 1, 1953

Clearly this would be censorship.” … “The trial court repeatedly'' interrupted with queries to the defense as to whether it contended that the Prosecutor could ‘grant immunity’ and repeatedly instructed the jury during the trial that no such immunity could arise

Paz v. DeSimone

139 N.J. Super. 102 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 9, 1976

The testimony of both parties clearly establishes that while defendants DeSimone had ownership and possession, the land was used only for farming and for no other purpose, thereby qualifying for the tax benefit. … In the instant case the testimony clearly indicates that there was in fact no collateral agreement between seller and buyer for the seller to pay roll-back taxes, and that the seller had maintained his land as a farm qualifying

PATRICK v. NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON

District Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 22, 2025

to qualified immunity. … Defendants are not seeking qualified immunity for such claims.

Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen

61 N.J. 190 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jul 19, 1972

The trend against the “completed and accepted” rule was already clearly established well before our Legislature acted. … Immunity is accorded the surety by the mere passage of time. Potential liability is then at an end whether or not a cause of action exists or, but for the statute, might thereafter arise.

BERNICE PISACK, ETC. VS. B&C TOWING, INC. VS. THE CITY OF NEWARK EPTISAM PELLEGRINO, ETC. VS. NICK'S TOWING SERVICE, INC., A-5668-16T3 CHRISTOPHER WALKER, ETC. VS. ALL POINTS AUTOMOTIVE & TOWING, INC. (L-6501-13, L-1606-17 AND L-7929-13, MIDDLESEX AND BERGEN COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE)

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 14, 2018

A plaintiff bringing a claim under the TCCWNA must establish that he or she is an "aggrieved consumer," and the defendant violated a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility." … Charges not permitted by the Towing Act violate a "clearly established legal right" or "responsibility."

Moore v. Bd. of Trustees

382 N.J. Super. 347 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 11, 2006

The issue issue presented by this appeal is whether a psychic stimulus occurring in the course of public employment may constitute a "traumatic event" that would establish eligibility for an accidental disability pension. … It is unclear whether the ALJ deferred this issue, as well as the issue of "delayed manifestation," for future consideration if appellant was able to establish he had experienced a traumatic event or events.

Vincent Hager v. M & K Construction (084045) (Statewide)

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Apr 13, 2021

The "claimant bears the burden . . . to establish his claim." Id. at 599 (citing Kahle v. Plochman, 85 N.J. 539, 548 (1981)). … The compensation judge considered both treatment methods and concluded that medical marijuana was the "clearly indicated option."

Benequit v. Borough of Monmouth Beach

125 N.J.L. 65 · Supreme Court of New Jersey · Jun 17, 1940

The prosecutrix without making any structural change or alterations in the building established it as a hotel and has conducted it as such since. … On the contrary the proofs clearly sustain the conviction. As stated above the charge was for violation of sections 12 and 17 of the ordinance.

Southland Corp. v. Edison Tp.

217 N.J. Super. 158 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 1, 1986

Southland also presented the expert testimony of Wayman Crow, Ph.D., who was qualified as an expert in the fields of the psychology of robbery, robbery deterrence and violence prevention. Dr. … Plaintiff Southland's evidence clearly establishes the absence of such a compelling public need. Thus the court must conclude that the ordinance is unenforceable as to Southland and establishments within its class.

CARPENTER v. CHARD, JR.

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

The question before the Court is whether Chard is entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established